Empathy may not be evil, but neither is it inherently good, and it is in fact both unnecessary and even potentially harmful. There are two potential dangers of empathy: 1) the possibility that empathy will actually discourage someone from acting justly and 2) the possibility that empathy will open up the ones experiencing it to great emotional harm. Amidst all the praise (much of it empty) given to empathy, these possible negative effects are often overlooked.
Regarding the first danger, it is better to be a moralistic sociopath than it is to have a conscience that is misguided. Sociopathy is advantageous as long as it is handled properly, as a sociopath has no inner sense of morality that might compel them to act in a manner that contradicts morality itself. Even without empathy, a sociopath could still sympathize with other people, as the latter does not require the former; sympathy requires only an intellectual understanding of another being and its experiences, while empathy cannot exist without an emotional/personal sense of what another being is experiencing.
The second danger of empathy, like the first, is almost completely ignored across human civilizations. When a person opens himself or herself up to the experience of another person's pain, they might be moved to action, but they might just as well be emotionally drained by the experience. This ultimately leads to the psychological suffering of multiple people. Empathy, while it might motivate someone to alleviate the pain of another person, could also cripple the empathizer and worsen the situation for everyone involved. To prevent this from occurring, one could always simply limit the number of people with whom one will intentionally form an empathetic connection.
Empathy can certainly be helpful for some people in select circumstances. However, it is far from the morally necessary thing that many mistake it for. An emotional connection with another's suffering does not make a person just, consistent, or rational, and might ultimately lead them to act in ways that are unjust, inconsistent, and irrational. The possible side effect of amplifying instead of reducing suffering means that empathy can even be counterproductive. While empathy does not have to produce any of these results, these possibilities must be guarded against to ensure proper personal flourishing.
Monday, April 29, 2019
Sunday, April 28, 2019
The Ease Of Refuting Metaphysical Naturalism
The idea that epistemological or metaphysical naturalism is unfalsifiable is utterly false, as there are at least four distinct things that can be proven to exist in full that are wholly immaterial: logic, consciousness, space, and time. Of these four existents, two cannot not exist (logic and space), and are the only things that inherently possess this quality of necessary existence [1]. All minds, including the mind of God, and time could cease to exist, but not the laws of logic or the space that holds matter, even if matter itself vanishes.
The necessary laws of logic are intangible, existing in the complete absence of matter and mind. Nonetheless, without consciousness, which is itself nonphysical even if it hinges purely on the existence of a nervous system, there would be nothing to comprehend the laws of logic. Without consciousness, matter, too, could not be perceived; furthermore, immaterial space is required to hold matter in the first place. Lastly, time, without which events in the material place could not occur, is also strictly immaterial.
Although the existence of each of the aforementioned existents disproves naturalism on its own, there is another way to refute metaphysical naturalism. This approach entails recognizing a key aspect of spoken language. If someone speaks aloud to argue for naturalism, he or she has already refuted their own claims—not only because they are trying to use logic (albeit fallaciously), which is itself immaterial, and because they must have a conscious mind in order to even think about the issue to begin with, but also because the very words they are orally using have no physical substance.
Despite the fact that contemporary scientific consensus regards sound travel as impossible without physical objects to carry vibrations from one position to another, a word itself is still completely immaterial. It is impossible to grasp or physically feel spoken words because they are not made of matter. To orally communicate the notion that nothing immaterial exists, a person must rely on something that has no physical substance (multiple such things, in actuality).
Many philosophers and theologians rely on myopic and incomplete ways of addressing naturalism. On one hand, it is common for them to pretend like naturalism is unfalsifiable but unlikely. On the other hand, it is also common for them to cite the immateriality of consciousness as the ultimate refutation of naturalism. Both positions are false. There are far more foundational ways to refute naturalism than appeals to consciousness, and the fact that the only two things that must exist (logic and space) are immaterial means that not all nonphysical things exist because of matter.
It is very important to highlight that things other than the existence of mind, such as the very words that are spoken aloud in favor of naturalism, prove that the physical cannot be the only thing in existence. Refuting naturalism in full is far easier than many seem to realize, regardless of how entrenched they are in academia. However, it is not unusual for academia to be a place of stupidity and intellectual stagnation to begin with, one way or the other.
[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
The necessary laws of logic are intangible, existing in the complete absence of matter and mind. Nonetheless, without consciousness, which is itself nonphysical even if it hinges purely on the existence of a nervous system, there would be nothing to comprehend the laws of logic. Without consciousness, matter, too, could not be perceived; furthermore, immaterial space is required to hold matter in the first place. Lastly, time, without which events in the material place could not occur, is also strictly immaterial.
Although the existence of each of the aforementioned existents disproves naturalism on its own, there is another way to refute metaphysical naturalism. This approach entails recognizing a key aspect of spoken language. If someone speaks aloud to argue for naturalism, he or she has already refuted their own claims—not only because they are trying to use logic (albeit fallaciously), which is itself immaterial, and because they must have a conscious mind in order to even think about the issue to begin with, but also because the very words they are orally using have no physical substance.
Despite the fact that contemporary scientific consensus regards sound travel as impossible without physical objects to carry vibrations from one position to another, a word itself is still completely immaterial. It is impossible to grasp or physically feel spoken words because they are not made of matter. To orally communicate the notion that nothing immaterial exists, a person must rely on something that has no physical substance (multiple such things, in actuality).
Many philosophers and theologians rely on myopic and incomplete ways of addressing naturalism. On one hand, it is common for them to pretend like naturalism is unfalsifiable but unlikely. On the other hand, it is also common for them to cite the immateriality of consciousness as the ultimate refutation of naturalism. Both positions are false. There are far more foundational ways to refute naturalism than appeals to consciousness, and the fact that the only two things that must exist (logic and space) are immaterial means that not all nonphysical things exist because of matter.
It is very important to highlight that things other than the existence of mind, such as the very words that are spoken aloud in favor of naturalism, prove that the physical cannot be the only thing in existence. Refuting naturalism in full is far easier than many seem to realize, regardless of how entrenched they are in academia. However, it is not unusual for academia to be a place of stupidity and intellectual stagnation to begin with, one way or the other.
[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
Reasonableness And Rationality
When a person declares that something is reasonable, the common usage of the word indicates that they are often only expressing a subjective assent to an idea or proposal. The very fact that many people say that a given claim "seems reasonable" demonstrates that they are not aiming for genuine rationality, with its deductive precision that does not hinge on subjective perceptions. They are instead aiming for personal persuasion. The two concepts are not the same.
I have yet to actually see a situation where the word reasonable is used in a way that is not in reference to someone's subjective threshold of persuasion--something that is short of absolute logical certainty. A claim is rational if it is in accordance with the necessary laws of logic, but "rational" is not the exact equivalent of what many mean by "reasonable." To be persuaded means nothing if one settles for an argument that is not entirely verifiable via the exercise of reason.
Persuasion is not the goal of a genuine seeker of truth; in fact, persuasion is absolutely useless and irrelevant to the pursuit of truth in itself. Proof is what those who desire the truth pursue, and nothing else. Anyone who seeks a lesser thing only reveals that they are content to believe without knowledge.
It is not surprising that many people settle for reasonableness instead of rationality, as intelligence is a scarce treasure. In a world of intellectual apathy, mediocrity, and unoriginality, a genuine rationalist will tower above those who cling to anything other than the laws of logic themselves. Because of this, he or she will ironically be able to enjoy both persuasion and proof alike, since it is only logical proof that should have peruasive power.
I have yet to actually see a situation where the word reasonable is used in a way that is not in reference to someone's subjective threshold of persuasion--something that is short of absolute logical certainty. A claim is rational if it is in accordance with the necessary laws of logic, but "rational" is not the exact equivalent of what many mean by "reasonable." To be persuaded means nothing if one settles for an argument that is not entirely verifiable via the exercise of reason.
Persuasion is not the goal of a genuine seeker of truth; in fact, persuasion is absolutely useless and irrelevant to the pursuit of truth in itself. Proof is what those who desire the truth pursue, and nothing else. Anyone who seeks a lesser thing only reveals that they are content to believe without knowledge.
It is not surprising that many people settle for reasonableness instead of rationality, as intelligence is a scarce treasure. In a world of intellectual apathy, mediocrity, and unoriginality, a genuine rationalist will tower above those who cling to anything other than the laws of logic themselves. Because of this, he or she will ironically be able to enjoy both persuasion and proof alike, since it is only logical proof that should have peruasive power.
Tuesday, April 23, 2019
Technology Is An Ally Of Relationships
When espousing the notion that older equates to better, someone must assume a conclusion that does not follow from its premises. That something is novel does not necessarily mean anything except that it is novel. Of course, this means that there is nothing intrinsically desirable about traditional ways of living. The significance of a lifestyle, just like the veracity of an ideology, has no connection at all to the zeal of its supporters or its age. Some people may not like the change that inevitably comes with technological advances, but reason is unaffected by the cries of their hearts.
While older age in no way means that someone will be opposed to technology, it is often the elderly or middle-aged individuals who object to the manner in which technology has become integrated into modern life. In some cases, nostalgia or a sheer dislike of technology motivates this stance. One of the more prominent reasons for this position, though, is that many sincerely regard technology as something that hinders, disrupts, and perhaps even destroys interpersonal relationships. It takes only a few moments to expose this anti-technology bias for the folly that it is.
While older age in no way means that someone will be opposed to technology, it is often the elderly or middle-aged individuals who object to the manner in which technology has become integrated into modern life. In some cases, nostalgia or a sheer dislike of technology motivates this stance. One of the more prominent reasons for this position, though, is that many sincerely regard technology as something that hinders, disrupts, and perhaps even destroys interpersonal relationships. It takes only a few moments to expose this anti-technology bias for the folly that it is.
Those who have not grown up immersed in a world as technologically oriented as the present one may be reluctant to grasp this, however. Without modern technology, it would ironically be very difficult for many people to connect with the same frequency and simplicity. Technology not only allows for friends and family members to remain easily accessible to each other, but it also enables some relationships to persist--or even thrive--when geography or busyness would otherwise complicate those relationships, if not outright diminish them.
It follows from this that technology is not a rival to human relationships by default. On the contrary, it facilitates them! The notion that intimate human interaction and the regular use of technology exclude each other is utter nonsense perpetuated by the ignorant. They try to hide their errors behind illogical claims intended to make their stance seem valid, yet their position ultimately reduces down to a set of subjective preferences, and nothing more.
Technology, when used in the right manner, is an indispensable ally of interpersonal relationships. At no other time in recorded history have humans in different countries been capable of instantly conmunicating with each other, much less communicating instantly in ways that allow for vocal or visual contact. Some people may not like technology, whatever the reason, but technology has objectively simplified human interaction and made it easier than ever for people to express the social dimension of human existence.
Saturday, April 20, 2019
Salvation Requires Human Activity
Though often embraced out of genuine sincerity, the idea that absolutely nothing a person does brings about their salvation is both Biblically erroneous and logically impossible. The Bible explicitly says that upholding Mosaic Law will not alter the soteriologal state of any human, but this is quite distinct from the typical evangelical claim that human action has nothing to do with salvation. Even a single verse referencing something a person must do to be saved contradicts the standard evangelical position.
The very act of committing oneself to God (whether or not this is described as "believing" in Christ) inescapably requires human activity. To commit to God, one must make a conscious decision, and to make a decision is to do something. No Christian, short of advocating for some form of Calvinistic doctrine, ultimately believes that the Bible teaches that humans contribute nothing at all to ensuring their own salvations. Now, this does not mean that they realize that they do not believe this.
Acknowledging a fact is not the same as denying the opposing claim. For instance, many Christians would quickly admit that the Bible is incompatible with moral relativism, only to turn around and literally claim that moral obligations are drastically different depending on whether one was born before or after the death of Jesus. Something similar can be observed when it comes to the human effort involved with becoming a Christian: it is not uncommon to find Christians who understand the logical and Biblical contradictions of Calvinism and yet fail to directly affirm that it is impossible for beings with free will to not contribute to their salvations.
That the Bible teaches that humans cannot secure redemption by obeying the commands of Mosaic Law--by not murdering people, by caring for the poor, by pursuing justice, and so on--does not mean that humans do not have to actively, freely choose to commit themselves to God. After all, the Bible plainly states that whoever commits to God has obtained salvation (though there is no obvious way to demonstrate that salvation cannot be lost once obtained). Thus, it cannot be said that nothing one does can ensure salvation, as the Bible only teaches that not even moral excellence can erase past guilt.
Many evangelicals dance around this every day, yet stop short of simply admitting that Christian soteriology does not regard God as being entirely responsible for anyone's salvation. Humans must do something to be saved, but the requirement is not moral perfection. Instead, it is commitment.
The very act of committing oneself to God (whether or not this is described as "believing" in Christ) inescapably requires human activity. To commit to God, one must make a conscious decision, and to make a decision is to do something. No Christian, short of advocating for some form of Calvinistic doctrine, ultimately believes that the Bible teaches that humans contribute nothing at all to ensuring their own salvations. Now, this does not mean that they realize that they do not believe this.
Acknowledging a fact is not the same as denying the opposing claim. For instance, many Christians would quickly admit that the Bible is incompatible with moral relativism, only to turn around and literally claim that moral obligations are drastically different depending on whether one was born before or after the death of Jesus. Something similar can be observed when it comes to the human effort involved with becoming a Christian: it is not uncommon to find Christians who understand the logical and Biblical contradictions of Calvinism and yet fail to directly affirm that it is impossible for beings with free will to not contribute to their salvations.
That the Bible teaches that humans cannot secure redemption by obeying the commands of Mosaic Law--by not murdering people, by caring for the poor, by pursuing justice, and so on--does not mean that humans do not have to actively, freely choose to commit themselves to God. After all, the Bible plainly states that whoever commits to God has obtained salvation (though there is no obvious way to demonstrate that salvation cannot be lost once obtained). Thus, it cannot be said that nothing one does can ensure salvation, as the Bible only teaches that not even moral excellence can erase past guilt.
Many evangelicals dance around this every day, yet stop short of simply admitting that Christian soteriology does not regard God as being entirely responsible for anyone's salvation. Humans must do something to be saved, but the requirement is not moral perfection. Instead, it is commitment.
Human Consciousness Is Personal
Human consciousness does not merely consist of baseline perception; it contains the recognition that there is a personal self that both experiences perception and has the ability to reflect upon and scrutinize its experiences. This caliber of consciousness is far from simple. Furthermore, it is this lack of simplicity that makes it inherently personal.
When I say human consciousness is not simple, I mean that it is a compound: it encompasses more than just one feature, as it entails cognition, emotion, memory, the capacity for sensory perception, and the will. The latter, with the others oriented around it, establishes the personal identity of each individual human. I am not just a passenger held hostage by my own experiences, but I am instead an active participant.
I recognize that there is an autonomous will behind my perception. It could have come about that human consciousness was blank and devoid of personal depth and individuality--but it is not so. The very nature of human consciousness is deeply personal. This goes far beyond sociality, as it could exist in the absence of all social interactions. Instead of sociality, the personal nature of human consciousness is rooted in immediate self-awareness.
One must possess self-awareness in order to even be capable of reflecting upon any experience at all, but it is only through prolonged introspection that one can become acquainted with just how far the personal dimension of (human) consciousness extends. With recognition of the self comes at least a basic comprehension of the complex, compound nature of the very consciousness the self experiences. The personal nature of the mind brings with it an individualistic depth that has no obvious ending point.
When I say human consciousness is not simple, I mean that it is a compound: it encompasses more than just one feature, as it entails cognition, emotion, memory, the capacity for sensory perception, and the will. The latter, with the others oriented around it, establishes the personal identity of each individual human. I am not just a passenger held hostage by my own experiences, but I am instead an active participant.
I recognize that there is an autonomous will behind my perception. It could have come about that human consciousness was blank and devoid of personal depth and individuality--but it is not so. The very nature of human consciousness is deeply personal. This goes far beyond sociality, as it could exist in the absence of all social interactions. Instead of sociality, the personal nature of human consciousness is rooted in immediate self-awareness.
One must possess self-awareness in order to even be capable of reflecting upon any experience at all, but it is only through prolonged introspection that one can become acquainted with just how far the personal dimension of (human) consciousness extends. With recognition of the self comes at least a basic comprehension of the complex, compound nature of the very consciousness the self experiences. The personal nature of the mind brings with it an individualistic depth that has no obvious ending point.
Friday, April 19, 2019
Game Review--Alien: Blackout (Android)
"I need urgent extraction from the Mendel research station. If you pick up this signal, proceed with extreme caution."
--Amanda Ripley, Alien: Blackout
Though mobile phones--more particularly, smartphones--are capable of providing fairly traditional gaming experiences when utilized correctly, mobile games are often neglected by the more devoted members gaming community. This bias was responsible for much of the early criticism of Alien: Blackout, especially in light of the fact that many wanted a console sequel to Alien: Isolation instead. However, the concept behind the game is a superb fit for smartphones and the Alien franchise. Instead of allowing players to freely roam around, Blackout has them directly control Amanda Ripley (Ellen Ripley's daughter), situated in a secluded room as she searches for the alien, in turn giving orders to crew members. One must make a series of often mutually exclusive decisions in order to proceed. To monitor the crew, you must leave Amanda in a vulnerable state. To close one door, another might have to be opened. To watch one camera feed, the others must be ignored.
Production Values
The graphics showcase the power of the Android's operating system well, easily matching the visuals of some 3DS or PS Vita games. Fittingly, the xenomorph, when viewed up close from Amanda's first-person perspective, has the best character model in the game. Where the game stands out the most, though, is the sound. The voice acting is excellent, especially on the part of Amanda Ripley herself. Other characters are voiced well, but Amanda is phenomenal--the same actress who played Amanda in Alien: Isolation (Andrea Deck) reprised the role for Blackout. Furthermore, the music, often involving stringed instruments, complements the atmosphere. Even the AI's sound is executed well: when you hear the alien quickly moving around the ship, it might be just about to attack Amanda.
Gameplay
The majority of the gameplay revolves around having Amanda direct other characters around a research station. When called for, she can make them hide, run, sneak around, or perform various environment-related tasks. At the same time, Amanda must try to track a xenomorph and close doors to protect herself or others if needed. Camera feeds can help locate the alien, but you cannot watch a feed and control certain doors at the same time.
At first, survival might seem like it is achieved or forfeited for random reasons, yet experimentation and several deaths can help players quickly adapt to the xenomorph's patterns. Motion sensors are a great help when trying to identify the alien's location in areas not covered by camera surveillance, but activating them requires power that could be used to close doors to keep the alien from spotting or killing crew members. Since there is only enough power to perform five tasks (closing doors or using motion sensors) at once, diverting power for one purpose can leave a different part of the ship unsecured. You must also finish each of the seven levels within eight minutes, or else the electrical power will be lost (hence the title Blackout) and Amanda cannot protect herself.
Story
Spoilers!
Amanda Ripley watches key areas of the Mendel research station, warning a small crew as it enters the vessel about an alien creature loose onboard. She guides them around the ship as they search for parts and complete miscellaneous objectives. With her assistance, surviving crew members help destroy the station to annihilate the creature.
Intellectual Content
Despite not exploring any explicitly philosophical themes, Blackout is a thoroughly intellectual game in the sense that the gameplay naturally involves a great deal of planning and rapid strategy alterations. The timer necessitates quick action, as the titular blackouts render Amanda vulnerable to the alien, resulting in her death. The xenomorph's relatively unpredictable behaviors amplify the need for sound strategizing. However, sometimes luck and randomness affect outcomes just as much as premeditated decisions and skill.
Conclusion
Blackout is short and without any significant replay value due to having no alternate modes (besides one where you play the same levels with no saves), unlockables, or collectibles, but it still represents a very clever use of the mobile platform. It is exactly the kind of spin-off or sequel that actually belongs on a mobile phone. At the very least, it fits comfortably within the existing Alien canon and offers some fairly intense bursts of cat-and-mouse gameplay. It is not the sequel to Isolation many people would have preferred, but it is far from a disaster.
Content:
1. Violence: The xenomorph can be watched via camera feeds as it attacks crew members, and failing to close the doors to Amanda's room when the alien approaches her leads to a death screen where the creature bites her.
--Amanda Ripley, Alien: Blackout
Though mobile phones--more particularly, smartphones--are capable of providing fairly traditional gaming experiences when utilized correctly, mobile games are often neglected by the more devoted members gaming community. This bias was responsible for much of the early criticism of Alien: Blackout, especially in light of the fact that many wanted a console sequel to Alien: Isolation instead. However, the concept behind the game is a superb fit for smartphones and the Alien franchise. Instead of allowing players to freely roam around, Blackout has them directly control Amanda Ripley (Ellen Ripley's daughter), situated in a secluded room as she searches for the alien, in turn giving orders to crew members. One must make a series of often mutually exclusive decisions in order to proceed. To monitor the crew, you must leave Amanda in a vulnerable state. To close one door, another might have to be opened. To watch one camera feed, the others must be ignored.
Production Values
The graphics showcase the power of the Android's operating system well, easily matching the visuals of some 3DS or PS Vita games. Fittingly, the xenomorph, when viewed up close from Amanda's first-person perspective, has the best character model in the game. Where the game stands out the most, though, is the sound. The voice acting is excellent, especially on the part of Amanda Ripley herself. Other characters are voiced well, but Amanda is phenomenal--the same actress who played Amanda in Alien: Isolation (Andrea Deck) reprised the role for Blackout. Furthermore, the music, often involving stringed instruments, complements the atmosphere. Even the AI's sound is executed well: when you hear the alien quickly moving around the ship, it might be just about to attack Amanda.
Gameplay
The majority of the gameplay revolves around having Amanda direct other characters around a research station. When called for, she can make them hide, run, sneak around, or perform various environment-related tasks. At the same time, Amanda must try to track a xenomorph and close doors to protect herself or others if needed. Camera feeds can help locate the alien, but you cannot watch a feed and control certain doors at the same time.
At first, survival might seem like it is achieved or forfeited for random reasons, yet experimentation and several deaths can help players quickly adapt to the xenomorph's patterns. Motion sensors are a great help when trying to identify the alien's location in areas not covered by camera surveillance, but activating them requires power that could be used to close doors to keep the alien from spotting or killing crew members. Since there is only enough power to perform five tasks (closing doors or using motion sensors) at once, diverting power for one purpose can leave a different part of the ship unsecured. You must also finish each of the seven levels within eight minutes, or else the electrical power will be lost (hence the title Blackout) and Amanda cannot protect herself.
Story
Spoilers!
Amanda Ripley watches key areas of the Mendel research station, warning a small crew as it enters the vessel about an alien creature loose onboard. She guides them around the ship as they search for parts and complete miscellaneous objectives. With her assistance, surviving crew members help destroy the station to annihilate the creature.
Intellectual Content
Despite not exploring any explicitly philosophical themes, Blackout is a thoroughly intellectual game in the sense that the gameplay naturally involves a great deal of planning and rapid strategy alterations. The timer necessitates quick action, as the titular blackouts render Amanda vulnerable to the alien, resulting in her death. The xenomorph's relatively unpredictable behaviors amplify the need for sound strategizing. However, sometimes luck and randomness affect outcomes just as much as premeditated decisions and skill.
Conclusion
Blackout is short and without any significant replay value due to having no alternate modes (besides one where you play the same levels with no saves), unlockables, or collectibles, but it still represents a very clever use of the mobile platform. It is exactly the kind of spin-off or sequel that actually belongs on a mobile phone. At the very least, it fits comfortably within the existing Alien canon and offers some fairly intense bursts of cat-and-mouse gameplay. It is not the sequel to Isolation many people would have preferred, but it is far from a disaster.
Content:
1. Violence: The xenomorph can be watched via camera feeds as it attacks crew members, and failing to close the doors to Amanda's room when the alien approaches her leads to a death screen where the creature bites her.
Saturday, April 13, 2019
Emotion Is Not A Weakness
Despite what cultural pressures might suggest, emotion is far from an inherent weakness. On the contrary, the ability to understand and display emotion to others can involve a great reserve of personal strength. Emotion that is contrary to or not constrained by reason is a weakness, but never emotion itself.
In fact, people are never stronger than they are when they thoroughly embrace both their intellects and emotions. The synergistic impact of utilizing both allows for deeper achievement and fulfillment. When a person ignores either the intellectual or emotional part of himself or herself, nothing has been accomplished except gratuitous self-hindering.
Attempts to suppress any aspect of human nature--not corruptions of human nature, but the nature itself--will almost certainly end in disaster. The greatest personal flourishing can only come about when we acknowledge and accept that there is not just one component of human nature that deserves attention. Some components might be far less important than others, but this does not mean that any of them are insignificant.
Humans are intellectual and emotional, and there is nothing about one side that contradicts the other. Both genuine rationalism and genuine Christianity affirm that neither dimension of humanity needs to be trivialized or silenced. Instead, both need to be emphasized. It is in the best interest of those who seek personal prosperity to do so.
In fact, people are never stronger than they are when they thoroughly embrace both their intellects and emotions. The synergistic impact of utilizing both allows for deeper achievement and fulfillment. When a person ignores either the intellectual or emotional part of himself or herself, nothing has been accomplished except gratuitous self-hindering.
Attempts to suppress any aspect of human nature--not corruptions of human nature, but the nature itself--will almost certainly end in disaster. The greatest personal flourishing can only come about when we acknowledge and accept that there is not just one component of human nature that deserves attention. Some components might be far less important than others, but this does not mean that any of them are insignificant.
Humans are intellectual and emotional, and there is nothing about one side that contradicts the other. Both genuine rationalism and genuine Christianity affirm that neither dimension of humanity needs to be trivialized or silenced. Instead, both need to be emphasized. It is in the best interest of those who seek personal prosperity to do so.
Friday, April 12, 2019
The Deficiencies Of Conservatism's Slow Change
Conservatism necessarily entails some degree of acceptance of the status quo, with conservatives often resisting even change that is inherently positive or liberating if it is perceived to be costly or difficult. To even be conservative in the first place, a person must cling to some sort of tradition no matter how erroneous or asinine it is. In fact, it would not be inaccurate to label many conservatives "status quo warriors," since they are intent on preserving historical or existing social norms that hurt America as a whole.
An attachment to tradition often means a lack of concern about any logical or moral problems associated with that tradition. No matter how much they protest to the contrary, conservatives are not chiefly concerned with morality, as their tendency to back relatively slow social changes towards moral improvement (such as towards extinguishing sexism or racism) evidences, as does their tendency to oppose various innocent, amoral things [1]. Instead, they are concerned with protecting traditions they selectively approve of.
When they do advocate for social change, it is often merely a change within existing social structures that occurs over a prolonged period of time that is being endorsed. In many cases, at the very least, nothing particularly vehement, immediate, or drastic is called for when it comes to transforming a culture for the better. Slow change that does not rock the boat is the goal, if a departure from traditional norms is pursued at all.
Crucial moral changes to the fabric of a society, whether they would occur on a legal or lifestyle level, should not be delayed for the sake of personal or collective reluctance--convenience and custom possess no ethical significance. It does not matter if pursuing justice will hurt the people who profit from its absence; it does not matter if the culture derives its very stability from flawed traditions.
If a society is systematically plagued by a specific injustice, its citizens have an obligation to fight that injustice, and to fight it ferociously if necessary. There is no legitimate defense of delayed reactions to correcting that which is contrary to reason and morality. Abrupt, violent change for the better is superior to a gradual shift from stupidity and immorality to justice (given that the change is not implemented in a way that itself contradicts morality). Those who only wish to allow major societal injustices to slowly fade away cannot be legitimately called true moralists.
[1]. Examples include the recreational use of comparatively mild drugs like marijuana and the enjoyment of nonsinful sexual activities (like the use of erotic media that does not promote immoral sexual behaviors).
An attachment to tradition often means a lack of concern about any logical or moral problems associated with that tradition. No matter how much they protest to the contrary, conservatives are not chiefly concerned with morality, as their tendency to back relatively slow social changes towards moral improvement (such as towards extinguishing sexism or racism) evidences, as does their tendency to oppose various innocent, amoral things [1]. Instead, they are concerned with protecting traditions they selectively approve of.
When they do advocate for social change, it is often merely a change within existing social structures that occurs over a prolonged period of time that is being endorsed. In many cases, at the very least, nothing particularly vehement, immediate, or drastic is called for when it comes to transforming a culture for the better. Slow change that does not rock the boat is the goal, if a departure from traditional norms is pursued at all.
Crucial moral changes to the fabric of a society, whether they would occur on a legal or lifestyle level, should not be delayed for the sake of personal or collective reluctance--convenience and custom possess no ethical significance. It does not matter if pursuing justice will hurt the people who profit from its absence; it does not matter if the culture derives its very stability from flawed traditions.
If a society is systematically plagued by a specific injustice, its citizens have an obligation to fight that injustice, and to fight it ferociously if necessary. There is no legitimate defense of delayed reactions to correcting that which is contrary to reason and morality. Abrupt, violent change for the better is superior to a gradual shift from stupidity and immorality to justice (given that the change is not implemented in a way that itself contradicts morality). Those who only wish to allow major societal injustices to slowly fade away cannot be legitimately called true moralists.
[1]. Examples include the recreational use of comparatively mild drugs like marijuana and the enjoyment of nonsinful sexual activities (like the use of erotic media that does not promote immoral sexual behaviors).
The Pleasure Of Masturbation
It is a travesty that the church does not celebrate sensuality, much less sexuality, in an open manner, since a Biblical worldview is very supportive of both. Deep asceticism has conditioned many Christians to act if they believe that God despises sensual pleasures, especially when those pleasures are sexual in nature. This discourages Christians from both accepting their physicality and understanding their personal sexualities. Consequently, Christians might feel guilt over engaging in completely amoral or innocent sexual behaviors, one such behavior being masturbation.
God clearly allowed the human body to have the capacity for both engaging in self-stimulation and receiving immense pleasure from doing so. It does not follow from this alone that masturbation is not sinful, but it does follow from the fact that Mosaic Law, Jesus, and New Testament authors never condemn masturbation that sexual self-pleasuring is nonsinful according to the moral epistemology and framework prescribed by the Bible itself (Deuteronomy 4:2, Romans 7:7, 1 John 3:4). Biblical ethics is a matter far more straightforward and simple than many are comfortable with.
Societal and church stigmas against sexual expression often result in shame over discussing or practicing masturbation; people who would quickly affirm that masturbation is not sinful might hesitate to call it a legitimate pleasure, or might be unwilling to actually acknowledge that they enjoy it (if they practice it to begin with). Because of the fact that even those who are otherwise open about their sexual activities and feelings might avoid directly talking about masturbation, either as a general topic or in the context of sharing their personal habits, it is easy for evangelical figures to trivialize or demonize self-stimulation.
Even if the subject embarrasses some when they explicitly convey such a thing, there is still a need for Christians to at least implicitly communicate that self-stimulation is an innocent pleasure for singles and married people alike. Some might need to have more emphasized to them beyond the fact that it is nonsinful: there is nothing perverse, selfish, or damaging about it in itself whatsoever. Furthermore, masturbation is not a sign that a person rejects marital sexuality or cannot find a romantic partner. It is an innocent pleasure that is completely without any inherently problematic moral, physical, or psychological aspects.
If more Christians were to renounce legalism and sincerely embrace what logically follows from this renouncement--complete ideological apathy or hostility towards social pressures and norms--more in the church would quickly realize that there was never anything dangerous or shameful about simple masturbation. Since the evangelical church, for all its grave errors, still influences American culture to a significant extent, abolishing legalism in the church would dispel at least part of broader cultural anxieties about sexuality.
God clearly allowed the human body to have the capacity for both engaging in self-stimulation and receiving immense pleasure from doing so. It does not follow from this alone that masturbation is not sinful, but it does follow from the fact that Mosaic Law, Jesus, and New Testament authors never condemn masturbation that sexual self-pleasuring is nonsinful according to the moral epistemology and framework prescribed by the Bible itself (Deuteronomy 4:2, Romans 7:7, 1 John 3:4). Biblical ethics is a matter far more straightforward and simple than many are comfortable with.
Societal and church stigmas against sexual expression often result in shame over discussing or practicing masturbation; people who would quickly affirm that masturbation is not sinful might hesitate to call it a legitimate pleasure, or might be unwilling to actually acknowledge that they enjoy it (if they practice it to begin with). Because of the fact that even those who are otherwise open about their sexual activities and feelings might avoid directly talking about masturbation, either as a general topic or in the context of sharing their personal habits, it is easy for evangelical figures to trivialize or demonize self-stimulation.
Even if the subject embarrasses some when they explicitly convey such a thing, there is still a need for Christians to at least implicitly communicate that self-stimulation is an innocent pleasure for singles and married people alike. Some might need to have more emphasized to them beyond the fact that it is nonsinful: there is nothing perverse, selfish, or damaging about it in itself whatsoever. Furthermore, masturbation is not a sign that a person rejects marital sexuality or cannot find a romantic partner. It is an innocent pleasure that is completely without any inherently problematic moral, physical, or psychological aspects.
If more Christians were to renounce legalism and sincerely embrace what logically follows from this renouncement--complete ideological apathy or hostility towards social pressures and norms--more in the church would quickly realize that there was never anything dangerous or shameful about simple masturbation. Since the evangelical church, for all its grave errors, still influences American culture to a significant extent, abolishing legalism in the church would dispel at least part of broader cultural anxieties about sexuality.
Wednesday, April 10, 2019
William Lane Craig's Thinly Veiled Presuppositionalism
To presuppose something--to presuppose anything at all--is to make oneself an enemy of reason to at least some small extent. All presuppositions are illogical and contrary to sound thinking, but the danger is amplified in accordance with how extensive or foundational a presupposition is. No one seems to be completely unaware of these facts, yet it is certainly rare to find someone who consistently grasps them.
Even those who do not profess to relying on assumptions often do in an ultimate sense. Christian apologists (in the professional sense), for example, are very prone to misdirection, putting on a facade of pseudo-rationalism while arguing in favor of selective presuppositions about reality. William Lane Craig is an excellent example of this. Though he does not describe himself as a presuppositionalist, and though he does not embrace secondary aspects of Christian presuppositionalism, his worldview is ultimately founded on a handful of mere assumptions. For instance, he has no issue whatsoever with claiming that the "inner witness of the Holy Spirit" is sufficient confirmation of the truth of Christianity--yet an emotional experience proves nothing except that one is having an emotional experience.
It is hardly a surprise to thorough rationalists that superficiality and fallacies are commonly mistaken to be profound and necessary, and the reputation of William Lane Craig is thus to be expected. Despite claiming that one can know moral truths through conscience, that the existence of God can be immediately known through personal experience, that nothing can be known with absolute certainty, and a host of other major or minor errors, Craig is regarded as a phenomenal philosopher. Anyone who endorses his epistemological stances is a presuppositionalist at heart, just as Craig himself is. While his presuppositionalism is veiled, the veil is thin; it is rather easy to tell that his arguments, many of which are deeply fallacious, are used in an attempt to deflect away criticism of his assumptions.
What makes his popularity even more astounding is that Craig does not even try to hide the fact that his worldview hinges on an unverifiable interpretation of subjective emotional experiences--conscience and the alleged presence of the Holy Spirit, more specifically. Remove the mask and facade of a philosophically sophisticated thinker from William Lane Craig (or from many other individual Christian apologists), and you will find a closet presuppositionalist of sorts who would rather cling to a set of emotionalistic assumptions than embrace the liberating powers of genuine rationalism.
Even those who do not profess to relying on assumptions often do in an ultimate sense. Christian apologists (in the professional sense), for example, are very prone to misdirection, putting on a facade of pseudo-rationalism while arguing in favor of selective presuppositions about reality. William Lane Craig is an excellent example of this. Though he does not describe himself as a presuppositionalist, and though he does not embrace secondary aspects of Christian presuppositionalism, his worldview is ultimately founded on a handful of mere assumptions. For instance, he has no issue whatsoever with claiming that the "inner witness of the Holy Spirit" is sufficient confirmation of the truth of Christianity--yet an emotional experience proves nothing except that one is having an emotional experience.
It is hardly a surprise to thorough rationalists that superficiality and fallacies are commonly mistaken to be profound and necessary, and the reputation of William Lane Craig is thus to be expected. Despite claiming that one can know moral truths through conscience, that the existence of God can be immediately known through personal experience, that nothing can be known with absolute certainty, and a host of other major or minor errors, Craig is regarded as a phenomenal philosopher. Anyone who endorses his epistemological stances is a presuppositionalist at heart, just as Craig himself is. While his presuppositionalism is veiled, the veil is thin; it is rather easy to tell that his arguments, many of which are deeply fallacious, are used in an attempt to deflect away criticism of his assumptions.
What makes his popularity even more astounding is that Craig does not even try to hide the fact that his worldview hinges on an unverifiable interpretation of subjective emotional experiences--conscience and the alleged presence of the Holy Spirit, more specifically. Remove the mask and facade of a philosophically sophisticated thinker from William Lane Craig (or from many other individual Christian apologists), and you will find a closet presuppositionalist of sorts who would rather cling to a set of emotionalistic assumptions than embrace the liberating powers of genuine rationalism.
Monday, April 8, 2019
Gender Segregation In The Church
In many churches, it is common to find various activities restricted to one gender or the other, as if there is anything helpful, rational, or Biblical about such gender segregation. There are ultimately two main reasons why some Christians seek to segregate men and women for church events, and especially for Bible studies: they either believe that the mingling of men and women will tempt people to commit sexual sins or they believe that men and women have inherent psychological differences that make it easier to teach them separately. Both reasons are completely erroneous.
The first basis for segregation of the genders is nothing but one of many examples of the church's general fear of sexuality and even of nonsexual intimacy between men and women. Regarding sexual impulses as omnipresent in many male-female relationships and thinking sexual feelings to be an uncontrollable force, many Christians submit to the unbiblical evangelical tradition of separating men and women when it comes to spiritual mentorship, small Bible studies, and even basic friendship. Not all relationships between men and women involve sexuality, though they have yet to learn this--but, furthermore, the presence of sexual feelings in a relationship does not mean that the relationship in question is somehow tainted, dangerous, or sinful. All men and women are capable of self-control and the rationalistic shedding of evangelical lies that hinder spiritual and social flourishing.
As for the second primary basis for gender segregation in church activities, all one needs to do to refute it is highlight that all psychological/personality traits are determined by nothing except for individuality and, in some cases, cultural conditioning. Anyone who insists otherwise commits the fallacy of composition (by assuming that all men or women share the personality traits or talents of a few) or uses the non sequitur fallacy (by assuming that it follows from having a male or female body that one must have so-called "masculine" or "feminine" tendencies, which are only associated with having a male or female body for arbitrary societal reasons). Truth can only be known when assumptions and the accompanying fallacies are abandoned, and there are many assumptions about gender that thrive in the church, waiting to be deconstructed.
Men and women have the same moral obligations, meaning they need the same encouragement and the same theological education (self-education through rationalistic reflection and personal studies are superior to looking to a church group for assistance, but many people are not intelligent or autonomous enough to consistently pursue them). Just because both genders have somewhat distinct bodies does not mean that their moral statuses differ in any way. When churches pressure men and women to separate for any particular church activity, both genders are not only deprived of the joys of open collaboration and friendship between men and women, but also of the opportunity to equip men and women for all aspects of Christian life.
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
The first basis for segregation of the genders is nothing but one of many examples of the church's general fear of sexuality and even of nonsexual intimacy between men and women. Regarding sexual impulses as omnipresent in many male-female relationships and thinking sexual feelings to be an uncontrollable force, many Christians submit to the unbiblical evangelical tradition of separating men and women when it comes to spiritual mentorship, small Bible studies, and even basic friendship. Not all relationships between men and women involve sexuality, though they have yet to learn this--but, furthermore, the presence of sexual feelings in a relationship does not mean that the relationship in question is somehow tainted, dangerous, or sinful. All men and women are capable of self-control and the rationalistic shedding of evangelical lies that hinder spiritual and social flourishing.
As for the second primary basis for gender segregation in church activities, all one needs to do to refute it is highlight that all psychological/personality traits are determined by nothing except for individuality and, in some cases, cultural conditioning. Anyone who insists otherwise commits the fallacy of composition (by assuming that all men or women share the personality traits or talents of a few) or uses the non sequitur fallacy (by assuming that it follows from having a male or female body that one must have so-called "masculine" or "feminine" tendencies, which are only associated with having a male or female body for arbitrary societal reasons). Truth can only be known when assumptions and the accompanying fallacies are abandoned, and there are many assumptions about gender that thrive in the church, waiting to be deconstructed.
Men and women have the same moral obligations, meaning they need the same encouragement and the same theological education (self-education through rationalistic reflection and personal studies are superior to looking to a church group for assistance, but many people are not intelligent or autonomous enough to consistently pursue them). Just because both genders have somewhat distinct bodies does not mean that their moral statuses differ in any way. When churches pressure men and women to separate for any particular church activity, both genders are not only deprived of the joys of open collaboration and friendship between men and women, but also of the opportunity to equip men and women for all aspects of Christian life.
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
The Impossibility Of Total Ignorance
Even many who recognize the utter impossibility of total skepticism never get any farther than realizing that logical axioms and consciousness cannot be illusory, regarding anything beyond these truths as ultimately uncertain. While axioms are infallibly true, far more about them can be known than the basic fact that they cannot be false. In fact, they are the key to knowledge about many matters.
The illumination provided by axioms does not apply only to axioms themselves, but to all things. It is outright impossible to not know at least some things about everything. Even if all that one knows about an obscure subject is that there are truths about it, that all of the necessary truths of axioms apply to it, there is baseline knowledge that is immediately grasped.
That necessary truths apply to all things is such a basic fact that many people seem to overlook it entirely. Nonetheless, the person who says "I don't know anything at all" about a topic, unless he or she is merely using drastic hyperbole, is in error. Axioms preside over all facets of reality, not just a handful of them; thus, one can always at least know that much about every single issue.
Everything is governed by reason, and, as such, everything is knowable to at least some minimal degree. There may often be many facts about a given matter that are unknown, but there are always at least a small cluster of facts that can be known about any aspect of reality. Sometimes even the simplest truths about a matter are overlooked by the vast majority of people.
The illumination provided by axioms does not apply only to axioms themselves, but to all things. It is outright impossible to not know at least some things about everything. Even if all that one knows about an obscure subject is that there are truths about it, that all of the necessary truths of axioms apply to it, there is baseline knowledge that is immediately grasped.
That necessary truths apply to all things is such a basic fact that many people seem to overlook it entirely. Nonetheless, the person who says "I don't know anything at all" about a topic, unless he or she is merely using drastic hyperbole, is in error. Axioms preside over all facets of reality, not just a handful of them; thus, one can always at least know that much about every single issue.
Everything is governed by reason, and, as such, everything is knowable to at least some minimal degree. There may often be many facts about a given matter that are unknown, but there are always at least a small cluster of facts that can be known about any aspect of reality. Sometimes even the simplest truths about a matter are overlooked by the vast majority of people.
Friday, April 5, 2019
Mathematics And Nature
It is one thing to marvel at the mathematical complexity of nature, but to be surprised at the fact that mathematics, which is nothing but numeric logic, governs the whole of nature betrays a deep and asinine philosophical confusion. A right understanding of reason reveals that there is nothing surprising about this at all, as any part of nature, from the smallest quantum particles to the the largest environmental structures, can only be in submission to the laws of logic. Furthermore, scientific inquiries are completely gratuitous when it comes to proving this; anyone can quickly demonstrate these truths to himself or herself while merely sitting in an isolated room.
There is a simple explanation of why no one needs to conduct scientific investigations to realize that it is impossible for mathematical truths to not impose themselves on every component of the external world: logical truths are necessary truths. A thing can only be what it is; one object can only be one object. There is no such thing as an alogical or amathematical aspect of nature--this is not the case because no such thing has ever been observed, but because an object not governed by the laws of logic is impossible due to the very concept containing an inherent contradiction. Anyone who supposes that there could be an aspect of the natural world that is free from the constraints of logic (which include mathematical constraints as a subcategory) is in error because they have not recognized that necessary truths cannot be anything short of universal.
The external world in its entirety must be governed by all logical and mathematical truths because there is no other possibility. The intersection of mathematical facts and the natural world might be subjectively exciting for some, but there is nothing about this intersection that defies reason. It is reason that makes this intersection necessary to begin with. Science can be used to identify mathematical patterns in nature, but the patterns themselves are not rooted in science. Scientific analysis of the physical universe relies on both the metaphysical existence of logic and the observer's comprehension of logic, whereas logic does not hinge upon science in any way. Thus, there is nothing unusual or shocking about the fact that nature is completely governed by mathematics.
At best, the person who denies this fails to rightly comprehend the basic laws of logic that ground math. At worst, the person who denies this might invoke a completely unrelated subject as if necessary truths exist only because they are contingent on something else, such as the existence of God. The uncaused cause is responsible for the existence of nature itself, but it cannot be responsible for the existence of mathematical truths, since they are just logical facts that pertain to numbers. Logical truths exist because of their own intrinsic necessity, for they would exist even if God himself ceased to exist--which is by no means a logical impossibility. Nature's submission to mathematics, therefore, is not random, but necessary. Nothing could change it.
There is a simple explanation of why no one needs to conduct scientific investigations to realize that it is impossible for mathematical truths to not impose themselves on every component of the external world: logical truths are necessary truths. A thing can only be what it is; one object can only be one object. There is no such thing as an alogical or amathematical aspect of nature--this is not the case because no such thing has ever been observed, but because an object not governed by the laws of logic is impossible due to the very concept containing an inherent contradiction. Anyone who supposes that there could be an aspect of the natural world that is free from the constraints of logic (which include mathematical constraints as a subcategory) is in error because they have not recognized that necessary truths cannot be anything short of universal.
The external world in its entirety must be governed by all logical and mathematical truths because there is no other possibility. The intersection of mathematical facts and the natural world might be subjectively exciting for some, but there is nothing about this intersection that defies reason. It is reason that makes this intersection necessary to begin with. Science can be used to identify mathematical patterns in nature, but the patterns themselves are not rooted in science. Scientific analysis of the physical universe relies on both the metaphysical existence of logic and the observer's comprehension of logic, whereas logic does not hinge upon science in any way. Thus, there is nothing unusual or shocking about the fact that nature is completely governed by mathematics.
At best, the person who denies this fails to rightly comprehend the basic laws of logic that ground math. At worst, the person who denies this might invoke a completely unrelated subject as if necessary truths exist only because they are contingent on something else, such as the existence of God. The uncaused cause is responsible for the existence of nature itself, but it cannot be responsible for the existence of mathematical truths, since they are just logical facts that pertain to numbers. Logical truths exist because of their own intrinsic necessity, for they would exist even if God himself ceased to exist--which is by no means a logical impossibility. Nature's submission to mathematics, therefore, is not random, but necessary. Nothing could change it.
Wednesday, April 3, 2019
Authoritarianism's Fatal Flaws
Authoritarianism, the belief that miscellaneous societal (and especially political) authority figures inherently deserve one's respect, submission, or obedience by virtue of their ranks or titles, is rejected in full by rationalism. Not only is authoritarianism dangerous in that it places entire cultures at the mercy of leaders who might act in arbitrary ways, but it disregards basic logical facts, as well as the dictates of morality. It is impossible for a person to be a genuine, consistent rationalist and an authoritarian at the same time.
No one who possesses social authority--whether that authority is parental in nature, governmental in nature, or of some other variety--deserves the submission of others simply because they hold a position of power. It does not follow form a person holding a position that they deserve to be treated as special or worthy of honor. Power does not make a person intelligent or just, and anyone without these qualities is in no position to inform others of how they should live. Some people partially realize this, only to act as if it is not true. It is ironic that those who pay lip service to reason and individualism (such as American conservatives) are sometimes the ones most likely to embrace a form of political authoritarianism! Indeed, some who loudly protest real or imagined battles against individual freedom might be among the first to cite someone's status of authority as justification for defending them.
A person should only be respected as an authority figure after they have demonstrated that they are indeed worthy of that respect in the first place. To treat someone as deserving of one's allegiance or admiration before he or she has had the opportunity to show the quality of their worldview and moral character is to treat them unjustly; to believe that someone will be a good leader before they establish that they are one is to merely assume the conclusion instead of verify it. Neither stance towards an authority figure is in accordance with either reason or morality. It is not the fact that the contrary approach prevents leadership disasters that makes it valid, but that it is rooted in the very nature of rationality and justice.
Authoritarianism might be easy for simplistic people to accept: after all, it might be perceived to deflect the responsibility of critical thinking and moral responsibility to another individual or class of people. Reason nonetheless conflicts with the idea that leaders, be they politicians, educators, parents, or ecclesial figures, should be regarded highly by default. The only rational way to approach a leader is to be completely neutral towards them until evidence that they are either intelligent or unintelligent, competent or incompetent, and just or unjust surfaces. No one can legitimately hide behind their formal title as if it is a shield from accurate criticism, and no one can legitimately defend an authority figure on the basis of their title.
No one who possesses social authority--whether that authority is parental in nature, governmental in nature, or of some other variety--deserves the submission of others simply because they hold a position of power. It does not follow form a person holding a position that they deserve to be treated as special or worthy of honor. Power does not make a person intelligent or just, and anyone without these qualities is in no position to inform others of how they should live. Some people partially realize this, only to act as if it is not true. It is ironic that those who pay lip service to reason and individualism (such as American conservatives) are sometimes the ones most likely to embrace a form of political authoritarianism! Indeed, some who loudly protest real or imagined battles against individual freedom might be among the first to cite someone's status of authority as justification for defending them.
A person should only be respected as an authority figure after they have demonstrated that they are indeed worthy of that respect in the first place. To treat someone as deserving of one's allegiance or admiration before he or she has had the opportunity to show the quality of their worldview and moral character is to treat them unjustly; to believe that someone will be a good leader before they establish that they are one is to merely assume the conclusion instead of verify it. Neither stance towards an authority figure is in accordance with either reason or morality. It is not the fact that the contrary approach prevents leadership disasters that makes it valid, but that it is rooted in the very nature of rationality and justice.
Authoritarianism might be easy for simplistic people to accept: after all, it might be perceived to deflect the responsibility of critical thinking and moral responsibility to another individual or class of people. Reason nonetheless conflicts with the idea that leaders, be they politicians, educators, parents, or ecclesial figures, should be regarded highly by default. The only rational way to approach a leader is to be completely neutral towards them until evidence that they are either intelligent or unintelligent, competent or incompetent, and just or unjust surfaces. No one can legitimately hide behind their formal title as if it is a shield from accurate criticism, and no one can legitimately defend an authority figure on the basis of their title.
Monday, April 1, 2019
The Existence Of Atoms
If someone was to doubt the existence of atoms in a public setting, he or she would likely be met with shock followed by ridicule. Many people seem to assume that a scientific or social consensus is strong evidence that a particular conclusion is true, and, because atoms are an integral part of modern physics, it is hardly surprising that the existence of atoms is often not doubted. In spite of this, the existence of matter--which is not up in the air [1], as the vast majority of people ultimately suppose when they are relentlessly pressed--does not necessitate that atoms exist.
Matter exists; one can be absolutely certain of this [1]. The fact that I feel physical sensations necessarily means that I have a physical body in which my consciousness resides. The existence of atoms, contrarily, much less the existence of subatomic particles like electrons, is not something that can be directly verified or falsified. The idea that atoms (or electrons, protons, neutrons, or quarks) exist can only be supported by situational sensory data, never to be completely established or refuted by empirical observation. This is the nature of all scientific inquiries. There is nothing that a scientific experiment proves about the natural world beyond the veil of perception--and even then, the perceived scientific laws are not guaranteed to last beyond the present moment in which they are observed.
Science is of great value as far as convenience is concerned, but it is of no use when it comes to verifying or falsifying metaphysical claims, such as those about the existence of atoms. Reason alone can prove or disprove miscellaneous facts. Airtight and immutable, logic is in every way superior to the scientific method. It is only through reason that one can prove the existence of an external world, though only a select few ever realize that the existence of the external world is neither ultimately unknowable nor something that cannot be demonstrated without some degree of faith. Science is simply not capable of proving that the external world exists (much less that atoms do), as there must already be an external world before one can even use the scientific method to begin with.
Does the inability to prove that atoms exist within the external world mean that they do not? No! This does not follow in any way. Science cannot prove that a particle exists, but it also cannot prove that a particle does not exist. Ultimately, the only things which can be proven to not exist are things that violate the laws of logic, whether by virtue of containing a contradiction within themselves (like beings or particles that exist and don't exist simultaneously or an alogical region) or conflicting with some other truth. When it comes to scientific matters, an absence of evidence does not and cannot prove that a given thing does not exist.
Any physical object that does not contradict logic could hypothetically exist, but proving the possibility of a particle's existence is very different than amassing consistent evidence for the presence of the particle. Furthermore, it must be emphasized that mere evidence can prove nothing except that the evidence itself exists. I have a body; matter exists outside of my body; the laws of logic necessarily govern all components of matter. Beyond these facts, the nature of the external world can only be hypothesized and supported by simple evidence as opposed to being verified by logical proofs, never to be truly known by humans as long as various epistemic limitations endure.
The existence of atoms is ultimately uncertain. The mass tendency for people to deny, when pressed, that the existence of an external world can be infallibly proven while reacting with confusion when someone denies that the existence of atoms can be known is a testament to the stupidity of many academics and "laypeople" [2] alike. The folly of non-rationalists runs deep.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/matter-is-not-illusion.html
[2]. No one is truly a non-philosopher. While the degree of a person's orientation towards philosophical matters, as well as their accuracy, can vary wildly from that of others, there is no such thing as a conscious person who is without a worldview. The only way to have a worldview is to engage in philosophy to at least some minor extent. Thus, all "laypeople" are philosophers in some way.
Matter exists; one can be absolutely certain of this [1]. The fact that I feel physical sensations necessarily means that I have a physical body in which my consciousness resides. The existence of atoms, contrarily, much less the existence of subatomic particles like electrons, is not something that can be directly verified or falsified. The idea that atoms (or electrons, protons, neutrons, or quarks) exist can only be supported by situational sensory data, never to be completely established or refuted by empirical observation. This is the nature of all scientific inquiries. There is nothing that a scientific experiment proves about the natural world beyond the veil of perception--and even then, the perceived scientific laws are not guaranteed to last beyond the present moment in which they are observed.
Science is of great value as far as convenience is concerned, but it is of no use when it comes to verifying or falsifying metaphysical claims, such as those about the existence of atoms. Reason alone can prove or disprove miscellaneous facts. Airtight and immutable, logic is in every way superior to the scientific method. It is only through reason that one can prove the existence of an external world, though only a select few ever realize that the existence of the external world is neither ultimately unknowable nor something that cannot be demonstrated without some degree of faith. Science is simply not capable of proving that the external world exists (much less that atoms do), as there must already be an external world before one can even use the scientific method to begin with.
Does the inability to prove that atoms exist within the external world mean that they do not? No! This does not follow in any way. Science cannot prove that a particle exists, but it also cannot prove that a particle does not exist. Ultimately, the only things which can be proven to not exist are things that violate the laws of logic, whether by virtue of containing a contradiction within themselves (like beings or particles that exist and don't exist simultaneously or an alogical region) or conflicting with some other truth. When it comes to scientific matters, an absence of evidence does not and cannot prove that a given thing does not exist.
Any physical object that does not contradict logic could hypothetically exist, but proving the possibility of a particle's existence is very different than amassing consistent evidence for the presence of the particle. Furthermore, it must be emphasized that mere evidence can prove nothing except that the evidence itself exists. I have a body; matter exists outside of my body; the laws of logic necessarily govern all components of matter. Beyond these facts, the nature of the external world can only be hypothesized and supported by simple evidence as opposed to being verified by logical proofs, never to be truly known by humans as long as various epistemic limitations endure.
The existence of atoms is ultimately uncertain. The mass tendency for people to deny, when pressed, that the existence of an external world can be infallibly proven while reacting with confusion when someone denies that the existence of atoms can be known is a testament to the stupidity of many academics and "laypeople" [2] alike. The folly of non-rationalists runs deep.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/matter-is-not-illusion.html
[2]. No one is truly a non-philosopher. While the degree of a person's orientation towards philosophical matters, as well as their accuracy, can vary wildly from that of others, there is no such thing as a conscious person who is without a worldview. The only way to have a worldview is to engage in philosophy to at least some minor extent. Thus, all "laypeople" are philosophers in some way.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)