Respect For The Body

The body is lifeless and empty without the consciousness that animates it; the Bible affirms this in James 2:26.  What the Bible does not do is trivialize the body, its health, or its beauty in order to clarify that the spirit is of much greater importance.  The body may be inanimate apart from the mind, but the body and its sensuality cannot legitimately be neglected in the name of Christian spirituality.  Humanity's dualistic nature is to be embraced by those who seek to understand Biblical metaphysics.

It becomes quite clear from a basic reading of the early chapters of Genesis that the human body is the most valuable of God's physical creations, as it was crafted to house the souls of the only type of being said to be made in God's own image (Genesis 1:26-27).  This function of the body has convinced some that to draw attention to the physicality or beauty of the body is to draw attention away from the spirit, the most extreme manifestations of this idea resulting in calls for the "modest" covering of one's physical form.

The high value the Biblical creation account attributes to the human body does not mean that it is obligatory to be deeply concerned about one's appearance (or to cover oneself), of course, yet a Biblical respect for the body could easily motivate one to seek out and cultivate physical beauty.  In turn, the systematic appreciation or showcasing of physical beauty may lead some to directly challenge the fallacies of modesty teachings, teachings which are wholly at odds with reason and Biblical ethics.

There is no reason to fear an emphasis on physical beauty, as if it by necessity indicates intellectual, spiritual, or moral shallowness.  A love of one aspect of human life is not exclusive with the love of another.  Even when motivated by an intense passion for the body, caring for and appreciating physical beauty does not have to detract from celebrating the more foundational nature of the spirit.  Indeed, the trivialization of either the body or the mind has embers of heresy within it.

To comprehend and enjoy the spiritual and physical dimensions of human life is to live in consistent acknowledgment that there is more than one metaphysical component to human nature and that Genesis calls this "very good."  No Christian respects the body by honoring the cultural construct of "modesty," nor do they respect the body by treating it as if God does not have a high regard for the aesthetics of his own creation.  When the natural world is admired by Christians who praise its perceived beauty only to ignore, demonize, or trivialize the perceived beauty of the human body, a deep cognitive dissonance is on display.

Game Review--Doom 3 (Switch)

"The board doesn't know the first thing about science.  All they want is something to make them more money, some product."
--Dr. Malcolm Betruger, Doom 3


Essentially a then-modern remake of the original Doom, which was later rebooted and remade in the 2016 Doom, Doom 3 retells the story of how the Union Aerospace Corporation's operations on Mars are disrupted when extraterrestrial demons from Hell breach a scientific facility.  The third entry in the series is noteworthy for its experimental take on the franchise material, which dabbles in survival horror and features more supporting characters than usual.  Dr. Betruger, Doom 3's version of what would later become Olivia Pierce in the following Doom reboot, has a far more constant presence in the story, and the UAC is portrayed as less powerless and corrupt than that of the newer game as well.

Production Values

The graphics have aged fairly well considering that Doom 3 was originally released in 2004, but the characters' facial animations in particular will remind experienced players that video game visuals have come a long way since the early 2000s.  It is actually the lighting system, often tied to the use of the player's flashlight, that stands out the most as far as realism is concerned.  In contrast to the graphics, the sound design seems more modern, but the audio does have one major weakness: the frequent voice acting is mediocre.

Gameplay

The survival horror atmosphere is notably missing from the subsequent Doom reboot, where the emphasis is placed on brutal action, but it is utilized well, usually by means of dark environments (sometimes very dark) and a flashlight mechanic.  The flashlight can be toggled on and off, lasting for a finite duration before it deactivates and recharges for several moments.  Unlike games such as the original Dementium, the Switch edition of Doom 3 allows you to use the flashlight and any weapon at the same time.

There is a fair amount of weapon variety, and many of the firearms will be familiar to experienced Doom players.  As you progress, you obtain a shotgun, an energy rifle, a rocket launcher, the infamously powerful BFG (short for "big fucking gun"), and several other weaponry options.  The Resurrection of Evil and Lost Mission expansion that is included with the Switch rerelease even features a "Grabber" device that allows you to lift objects in the environment and move or throw them--even enemy fireballs can be intercepted and thrown back.

The diversity in the weapon choices, however, does not translate to diverse level objectives.  For much of the game, players will repeatedly complete the same few tasks and kill the same kinds of enemies.  There are many times in the campaign and add-ons when specific PDAs must be found in order to unlock certain doors.  Repetition does not make gameplay itself bad, but it does mean there are obvious patterns that almost every in-game action falls into in some way.

Story

Mild spoilers are below!

A UAC base on Mars is visited by a marine and an investigator after a scientist's disappearance, at which point alien creatures from another dimension called Hell appear and begin killing or seemingly possessing workers.  The visiting marine finds he is the only one capable of repelling the invasion.  However, a base executive has defected to the demons' side, and he obtains a new form in Hell, where he resides after the main campaign.

In the Resurrection of Evil expansion pack, a team of marines are sent to investigate an area, resulting in them opening a door that could release the demons of Hell.  The Lost Mission expansion occurs during the main campaign and follows a lone soldier otherwise only shown in an early campaign cinematic as he tries to deactivate a portal left open in Hell.


Intellectual Content

The 2016 reboot of Doom features a fair amount of optional platforming-based exploration, but Doom 3 lacks this, even if the survival horror approach can better lend itself to cautious, more strategic progression.  Don't expect puzzles, collectible hunting, philosophical themes, or a deep representation of the franchise's lore.


Conclusion

The slower gameplay style and horror atmosphere of Doom 3 are not things many people associate with Doom, but differing from series norms does not mean a video game (or film) is lacking in quality.  Now that Switch owners are able to play Doom 3 and will soon be able to play almost every other Doom game, though, the differences will be obvious to anyone who plays them consecutively.  Doom 3 will likely appeal far more to those who enjoy unique creative choices than those who dislike changes to their favorite series.


Content:
 1.  Violence:  The outdated graphics soften some of the gore, but rooms occasionally have dismembered limbs or mutilated torsos laying around (or hanging down).  Shooting and killing enemies produces blood.
 2.  Profanity:  Infrequent, mild profanity such as "damn" is used.

Masturbating To Erotic Imagery (Part 4)

That asexuals can masturbate, and do so regularly, is an often neglected truth about sexual self-stimulation.  Although asexuals do not experience their natures as sexual beings in the same way that other people do, they are still sexual beings.  Their anatomy and physiology is not determined by their asexuality.  They are entirely capable of not only sexually pleasuring themselves, but also of enjoying self-stimulation and craving the pleasure it brings.  This is not all they are capable of: some asexuals may incorporate erotic media into their masturbation.

A person is not excluded from being asexual just because he or she uses erotic stories, images, or videos to facilitate bodily arousal.  An erotic stimulus (or non-erotic stimulus, like a mere image of the nude body or the sight of an attractive person of the opposite gender on the beach) can still elicit a sexual response from someone's body even if that person is not actually attracted to anyone portrayed in the images or videos.  Physiological reactions and physical sensations are not eliminated by a lack of sexual attraction, after all.

Masturbation can be pleasurable and even empowering for asexuals, since it is nothing more, in itself, than the use of one's hands to stimulate one's genitalia.  That someone does not experience sexual attraction to any particular person does not mean that sexual behaviors are not pleasurable!  Even people who do experience sexual attraction might masturbate while thinking of or viewing images of the opposite gender when there is no sexual attraction present, simply using the thoughts or images to facilitate arousal [1].

If people who are not asexual can masturbate to members of the opposite gender without being sexually attracted to them and yet still enjoy the experience, then asexuals certainly can do the same!  In both cases, someone is stimulating their minds or genitalia without feeling attracted to the person in the thoughts or images, as the imagery is not being used because the person being imagined or viewed stirs up emotions of sexual attraction.  There is no other purpose for it in these situations.

It follows that one cannot necessarily determine if someone seems to not be asexual based upon details they may give about masturbation habits.  Asexuals may choose not to masturbate or may simply have no interest in the activity, but they might also masturbate with or without mental or physical imagery, some of which might be explicitly sexual.  The purpose of erotic media is sexual excitement of the body or mind, and asexuals are able to use pictures, videos, or written stories to arouse their bodies or put themselves in a state of mind where they are inclined to engage in sexual behaviors--even when no one else is involved.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/12/masturbating-to-erotic-imagery-part-2.html

The Overhyped Mysteriousness Of Consciousness

If every conscious being has access to its own mind, why would the idea that consciousness is an unsolved or unsolvable "mystery" persist?  There is no such thing as an experience apart from consciousness, whether one is dreaming or awake, and thus consciousness is present as long as one is aware of anything at all.  With the sole exception of the laws of logic, there is nothing more foundational to the experience of human life than consciousness.  This necessarily means that consciousness is by default one of the most familiar things for all people, yet this does not stop some scientists from making misleading claims about the understandability of the mind.

Perhaps it is the tendency for them to try to scientifically analyze that which can only be analyzed through reason and introspection that keeps them from seeing the relative simplicity of consciousness, or perhaps they fall into the same trap many other people do and simply inherit their ideas from others.  They may falsely equate the mind with the brain, mistaking something nonphysical with something material and then finding themselves in a metaphysically incoherent belief system.  Whatever their reasons, they have only dramatically overhyped the "mysteriousness" of consciousness.

Thoughts, emotions, volition, and the intellect are all aspects of human consciousness that certainly have a depth that few even begin to truly understand, but it is immediately obvious to any intelligent thinker that consciousness itself is simply the ability to perceive.  All that one must do to grasp the metaphysical nature of consciousness is reflect on one's introspection in a rationalistic manner.  Whether mind sustains matter or matter sustains mind is completely irrelevant to understanding what consciousness itself is.

The difficulty some people have with thoroughly comprehending what consciousness is does not come about because mind is an inherently enigmatic existent, as one can easily see that mind is a non-physical seat of experience.  Rather, the difficulty emerges when they think that they must know the exact mechanism by which consciousness could be created by the arrangement of matter referred to as a brain or when they think science will someday be able to illuminate the exact manner in which an immaterial mind interacts with a physical nervous system.

Science will never be capable of framing genuine knowledge about consciousness because the only demonstrable truths about consciousness itself are verified by reason and introspection.  At most, science can identify correlations between mental and physiological events--this reveals nothing about the function of the body outside of observation through one's consciousness.  As soon as one recognizes this, it becomes clear that not everything about consciousness must be known before one can prove with absolute certainty what consciousness itself is--and that it exists.

The Physicality Of Hell

The idea of human consciousness continuing to exist after the body dies does not necessarily entail an afterlife that does not feature matter.  Consciousness is nonphysical (even if does not exist without the body), but it does not follow that a realm like hell, if it exists, is devoid of matter.  Indeed, Biblical details about the Christian conception of the afterlife completely exclude the notion of a matterless hell.

The Biblical hell is not a realm of immaterial fire--such a place could not even exist!  Fire is a distinctly material thing, meaning that if the particular aspects of hell mentioned in the gospels are described literally, hell is a dimension or realm in which physical flames (Matthew 18:8) and worms (Mark 9:47-48) reside.  Hell, at the very least, involves explicitly physical punishment and is said to be reserved for every component of unsaved humans.

Regardless of the hypothetical extent to which descriptions of hell might be metaphorical, the fact that Jesus refers to the body being destroyed in hell along with the spirit (Matthew 10:28) establishes that hell is not divorced from physical substance.  Hell is more than a purely immaterial plane of existence, or else it would be impossible for the unsaved to have their bodies annihilated in hell along with their consciousnesses/souls.

Even a superficial reading of the Genesis creation account should alert the reader that God did not create humans to be only spiritual/mental beings: God created humans to be spirits housed within physical bodies.  Humans are neither purely physical nor purely spiritual (in the sense that humans do not exist only as spirits).  If a person sins, they have earned death (Romans 6:23), not only of the soul (Ezekiel 18:4), but also of the body (again, see Matthew 10:28).

As such, hell cannot exclude the presence of the body, or else it could never be reduced to ashes in hell (2 Peter 2:4).  The Biblical details about both hell itself and the corporeal nature of the punishment therein affirm that hell is indeed at least partially a physical place.  When someone says otherwise, they either have not read the Bible very closely or they have merely accepted the false assumptions of others.

How Feminism Uproots Misandry

Men have just as much to gain from feminism as women do--when used correctly, the word only refers to a consistent egalitarianism that includes the deconstruction of sexist ideas that affect both men and women.  Since genuine feminism is the ideology of gender equality, and since patriarchal ideas involve a great deal of sexism towards men, it should be obvious that it is not just women who need liberation from oppressive traditions.  Nevertheless, it is still jolting for some to even hear about male feminists, as feminism is something erroneously regarded as focusing on women at the expense of men, and men are often seen as not needing any kind of social change on their behalf.

When one looks at how men are and have been treated, of course, these myths are exposed as the follies they are.  Men have been treated as expendable sources of military and occupational utility across all of recorded history.  Domestic and everyday violence against men has often been trivialized, concealed, or ignored to the point where many people genuinely believe men are not victimized in the same ways women are, much less with a similar frequency or by women themselves.  The male body has been neglected and ridiculed across many patriarchal societies.  Men's emotional needs have been cast aside, the only emotions men are largely expected to experience being anger and sexual desire.

Then there are the many personal difficulties that could come with men being raised to think they must be equipped for leadership and social authority--some men, like some women, are simply not natural leaders, yet they have been thrust into societies that pretend as if all men are equipped to lead.  There are also the psychological tolls that can easily come with being taught that they must be financially independent and willing to allow women in general to leech onto their resources.  Furthermore, there are the frustrations that any thoughtful man might feel when suspicion is the default reaction of many strangers to him.

It does not take any rational, experienced person long to realize that human history tells not only of systematic discrimination against women, but also of systematic discrimination against men.  Indeed, the only way someone could fail to realize this is if they view men through the lens of sexist assumptions!  There are some forms of discrimination that some women may experience that many men do not--for instance, men seem to almost never be told to cover their bodies for the sake of staving off female eyes.  However, there are some forms of discrimination that men are very likely to experience that many women do not--one example is that women are not treated like human beasts of burden.

Men benefit from feminism because everyone benefits when no one is pressured or forced into societal, familial, and occupational roles based on stereotypes.  It is impossible for sound individualism, which genuine feminism reduces down to, to harm men or women!  If someone who identifies as an egalitarian is puzzled that male feminists exist, they do not understand feminism beyond the superficial and incomplete summaries of it that the typical, unthinking person is likely to use.

No one who has lived in a culture infested with some sort of religious or secular complementarianism should have to take longer than several minutes to grasp this.   It is not as if women have suffered to an indescribably greater extent under patriarchal societies, for every misogynistic idea is affiliated with a misandrist one.  Men have far more to gain from feminism than most people claim: men are always better off when they are acknowledged as the whole persons they are, not as violent, egoistic, unsexy, simplistic beings to be discarded when there is not a dangerous task that needs completion.

The Sensory Basis Of Divine "Hiddenness"

An immaterial thing, simply because it has no tangible presence, might be incapable of detection by the senses.  This is not to say that immateriality renders sensory detection of a thing impossible.  Sound, after all, is immaterial, yet it cannot be registered apart from the sense of hearing.  However, that something is inaccessible to the senses does not mean that it does not exist, just as the fact that something is perceived with the senses does not mean it does not exist.

Although sensory evidences are of no epistemological value beyond proving that the evidences themselves exist, they are often sought when a person contemplates the issue of God's existence.  Since the very nature of a purely spiritual being is one of non-physicality, however, this leaves many people searching in the wrong places for confirmation of God's existence, a major example being when they focus on irrelevant scientific matters.  Some partially grasp this only to end up denying the truth or verifiability of mere theism on grounds of "divine hiddenness."

The senses are useful for collecting information about how one perceives one's physical surroundings, but logic allows access to a plethora of abstract metaphysical truths that anyone can know without ever investigating the external world.  Among these is the logical fact that there is an uncaused cause that existed before the universe, whether it directly brought the universe into existence or started a causal chain that eventually resulted in the universe's creation [1].  Because the uncaused cause had to exist prior to the material world, it must be immaterial.

To object to mere theism, which does not itself even demonstrate that amoral deism is false, because of a lack of sensory evidence is therefore a completely erroneous approach to epistemology.  Even if there was direct sensory evidence that God exists, such as visions of a deity that all humans shared on a regular basis, sensory evidence proves nothing more than that the perceptions exist!  That God can only be proven to exist by logically discovering the necessity of an uncaused cause makes the senses irrelevant to almost the entirety of theological metaphysics, but it also is the only reason why anyone can have absolute certainty that a deity of some kind exists, even oneself was the uncaused cause[2].

Not even the most popular Christian apologists (who are mostly fallacy machines) ever seem to get so specific when discussing God's existence, yet the Bible does not contradict any of the aforementioned logical facts.  John 4:24 describes Yahweh--not Jesus, but the being Jesus refers to as "the Father"--as a spirit.  In other words, the Biblical deity is a consciousness without a body, a strictly immaterial entity that could not be detected by the senses on its own.  Since the uncaused cause must be immaterial by virtue of preceding the physical cosmos, John 4 is consistent with the logical fact that that there is an immaterial uncaused cause.

The existence of an uncaused cause does not prove the veracity of Christianity as a whole, but it does demonstrate that the intangibility of a purely spiritual being is not a barrier to proving its existence if it exists by logical necessity.  Ironically, one can prove that a deity exists, but it is impossible to prove that other human minds exist!  An erroneous emphasis on the senses has led people to the inverse conclusion, leaving them with the fallacious idea that truths about God's existence are hidden and unknowable.  Divine hiddenness only seems thoroughly problematic to someone who looks to the senses to ground epistemology when it is reason alone that can do such a thing.

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

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/metaphysics-and-absolute-certainty.html

The Concept Of A Circle

Calling the relationships between numbers social constructs is an outright blunder that, if the claimant is consistent, reduces to the gravest error of all: the dismissal of reason as a construct of the human species.  Nevertheless, not only is the linguistic side of mathematics--the set of words assigned to numeric values--nothing but an arbitrary human creation, but it is also the case that entire sections of the geometry taught in schools are nothing but constructs themselves.  Consider the numeric values associated with the concept of a circle.

Calling a full circle a 360° angle is an arbitrary way to numerically define the shape, as one could call a circle 270°, 623°, or any other number of degrees without actually contradicting the concept of a circle.  No one can prove that a circle is 360° all the way around; they can only define degrees in such a way that 360 of them form a circle, the concept of a circle being something that does not depend on human acknowledgment.  This is because the concepts of shapes and numbers are not dictated by human language and convention, even though 360° is regularly equated with a circle as if it is a logically necessary part of the definition.

The concept of a perfect circle is always that of a shape where a point is surrounded on all sides by a unbroken, curving line that is always an equal distance from the center--but this does not prove that a circle contains a 360° angle.  That is simply the value that humans have assigned to the idea of a full circle.  None of this affects the fact that no matter what any person calls the angle of a circle, the idea of a circle is objective, reducing to the laws of logic rather than to linguistics or other social constructs.

Mathematical concepts (and, of course, logical concepts as a whole) are not invented by individuals or societies, but the descriptions of them can only be expressed in an arbitrary manner either within the communicative norms of a given society or in an individual's own words.  Classifying a circle as a 360° angle is merely useful for schooling and other practical purposes.  What matters more than the arbitrary number of degrees one labels a full circle is the fact that the concept of a circle is untouched by the customs of language.

Movie Review--Underwater

"When you're underwater for months at a time, you lose all sense of day and night."
--Norah Price, Underwater


Scores of sequels and reboots often overshadow original films, but persistently searching for movies that are not part of classic or established franchises can pay off.  It certainly has its issues, but Underwater proves far more atmospheric and original than this month's reboot of The Grudge.  Underwater is a mixture of the excellent and the mediocre, combining superb production values with the kinds of passable characters featured in so many other movies.  Thankfully, many of the lead performances (including Kristin Stewart's) help keep the characters afloat once the unrelenting danger starts within the first few minutes of the movie.  The last act even borderlines on developing themes of cosmic horror, a subgenre of horror that is not often explored in mainstream horror films.


Production Values

From the first scene onward, it is apparent that the sets and CGI are utilized very well, providing a consistent and realistic aesthetic.  The creatures themselves are not only fairly unique, but they are also never cheapened by poor effects.  While a handful of jumpscares are included in the movie, there are not many of them.  A strong atmosphere is given priority over petty jolts even in many scenes where the monsters are featured.  That these underwater beings stand out can draw attention to the fact that the human characters are not particularly special, though, despite the acting remaining solid for the whole runtime.

Kristin Stewart's Norah, the most prominent member of the cast, is somewhat monotone at times, but she does show emotional fluctuations during some scenes.  The idea that Stewart is utterly incapable of realistic acting is false, not that all characters need to display deep emotion to begin with--not all people are prone to vividly communicate their emotions with words or facial expressions, after all!  The other cast members don't offer bad performances, but the focus on Norah comes with the cost of strong characterization for them.


Story

Spoilers!

The Kepler drilling station, an underwater structure in the Mariana Trench, begins to unexpectedly flood, forcing the surviving employees to consider walking along the bottom of the trench in pressurized suits.  An engineer named Norah saves part of the rig, but the circumstances convince her companions to attempt to walk to another station.  As they begin their underwater trek, it becomes clear that an unknown species is present.


Intellectual Content

In the rush to investigate other planets for traces of sentient life, many often forget that the earth's own oceans could easily host creatures that have never before been discovered.  Since anything that does not contradict logic is at least hypothetically possible, it might very well be the case that something resembling an eldritch monster of Lovecraftian lore exists miles below the surface of our oceans (of course, no eldritch being could be outside of or over all of reality, as at least one of Lovecraft's entities is said to be, because the laws of logic cannot be defied by even the greatest conscious being).  Films like Underwater are the rare exception to the entertainment norm of exploring ideas about extraterrestrial life, demonic activity, or mainstream cryptozoology.


Conclusion

The infamous "January curse" of poor film quality does not apply to Underwater, even if the characters are in need of deeper development.  If the surviving or replacement characters were more developed, a sequel to Underwater could potentially establish a cinematic universe featuring cosmic entities comparable to those of Lovecraftian lore.  At the very least, the scale of Underwater's ultimate "antagonist" and the setting of the Mariana Trench genuinely distinguish the movie from many other recent creature horror films.


Content:
 1.  Violence:  A man implodes from intense pressure, and his body parts float around other characters onscreen.
 2.  Profanity:  While "shit" is uttered frequently, one character does use the film's one allotted "fuck."

Human Monsters

Tales of monsters have been used to frighten and entertain people from the introduction of the most primitive cryptozoological legends to the era of modern horror filmmaking.  In the world of The Witcher, stories of monsters are often quite true, serving as warnings to the inhabitants of the Continent.  The recent streaming adaption of the book series shows several of these animals.  In fact, they are directly relevant to one of the show's strongest themes.

Although The Witcher addresses issues like racism, the "lesser evil," and concept of destiny, perhaps The Witcher's primary theme is the blatant contrast between the monstrous natures of the creatures Geralt kills and the monstrous natures of many of the humans he encounters.  The amoral instincts of a beast are, in one sense, far less dangerous than the selfishness of a human who disregards reason and justice in favor of taking what he or she wants from others.

Just as a lion has not violated any moral obligations by killing other beings (on the Biblical worldview), a hirikka has not committed any "sin" by attacking humans it comes across.  The same cannot be said of the queen or king who rules without regard for anything more than their self-interest or immediate desires.  That a animal can take a course of action without committing any moral offense does not mean the same is true of humans--yes, humans are animals when the latter is defined in the broadest sense, but humans are objectively different from other animals.

A human who violates their moral obligations to other humans, in one sense, has done something far worse than the actions of any animal.  It is not that every individual human is more immediately dangerous than any given animal, but that the animal has done nothing other than act upon natural impulses, having a lesser intellect than humans (as the striga exemplifies in The Witcher).  Human monsters have far more to cast aside when they choose to allow nothing besides their present impulses to lead them.

Strigas, kikimoras, and dragons are beings to be wary of, but humankind produces the most devious monsters of all.  There is Yennefer, the sorceress who makes men and women commit sexual acts in front of her for her pleasure while under mind control, robbing them of their consent.  There is Jaskier, the bard who slanders an entire group of Elves to provide material for his songs, demonizing the remnants of a race that has already suffered from illicit discrimination.  Then there are the ordinary people who shun witchers based on injurious myths they have latched onto.

While The Witcher never comes anywhere near the same kind of portrayals of human viciousness as Game of Thrones, to which it has been predictably compared, the human capacity for malice and selfishness is a significant part of its thematic content nonetheless.  It is human monsters, after all, that each generation would do well to fear, not the creatures of unverified tales.  This certainly does not mean that any human is doomed to commit monstrous behaviors, for no sin is inevitable.  Individuals choose how vile or righteous they become.  All the same, it is humans, not the animals of myth or experience, that display savagery of a kind that surpasses that of a dragon or troll.

Wanting The Rich To Be Poor

At some point, Americans will very likely come across those who speak of the rich with resentment and malice, as if each member of the "upper class" has personally trapped them in poverty as part of a sadistic game.  This is associated with a subset of political liberals and may ironically come in the form of fierce condemnations of classism.  In some cases, they do not stop at accusing every rich individual of being directly responsible for their lack of wealth, but they also express the desire for the rich to be poor and experience whatever unfair difficulties and stereotypes are currently faced by the poor.

To denounce neglect of the poor only to say that the rich should be made poor and forced to navigate poverty themselves is thoroughly hypocritical, as is any other attempt to combat illicit discrimination by means of the same kind of discrimination.  The emotionalism of the liberals who embrace this contradiction--not all liberals do so--drives them to engage in the very things they would otherwise detest.

It keeps them from admitting that if it is wrong to belittle, stereotype, or ignore the poor, then it is by necessity wrong to do such things to a former member of the upper class even if they once mistreated the poor themselves.  Moreover, if exploiting the poor is immoral, then it would not be any less so to make someone poor for the purpose of exploiting and dehumanizing them.  An inherently immoral action does not become legitimized by circumstances.

As with sexism, racism, and nationalism, classism is irrational and unjust no matter which direction it goes in.  If one truly wants to abolish assumptions and discrimination based upon the amount of wealth or social influence a person has, one must refuse to assume and discriminate against the lower, middle, and upper classes alike.  To condemn classism in word but despise the wealthy for no reason other than that they have more wealth is to do nothing but live out a facade.

Love Is Not Blind

One of the most prominent excuses for irrational claims and contradictory behaviors on the part of infatuated lovers is familiar to many: "Love is blind."  The fact that romantic and sexual attraction never have to overpower someone in the first place aside, anyone who unironically uses this phrase almost certainly does not understand what love and psychological blindness are.  Moreover, they almost certainly do not understand rationality and free will.

It is certainly true that someone might not be able to control who they harbor romantic affection or interest towards, as logical reflection or painful experience can teach.  However, that person can still decide how to act despite whatever they feel--romantic attraction likewise does not have the ability to remove a person's ability to grasp the laws of logic and act accordingly.  Because reason is accessible to all people, regardless of their emotional circumstances, one can experience deep romantic or sexual emotions without ignoring reason.

This is the power that autonomy and personal volition imbue every person with.  Free will does not mean that everyone is able to choose exactly what they feel and to what intensity they feel it; it means that self-control is possible, whether or not one is experiencing strong romantic, sexual, or other kinds of feelings.  No one is a helpless slave to their emotions, even to something as powerful as genuine love.

Short of someone being physically blind, there is no such thing as a spot that cannot be at least hypothetically seen with the eyes.  Similarly, there is no such thing as a helpless, emotion-fueled psychological blindness to logical truths.  Love, real or imagined, cannot make someone blind to a fact because all they have to do to see it to begin with is simply choose to introspectively look in the right direction.

It follows that love itself is not and cannot be blind.  Even so, individual people can submit themselves to a voluntary, avoidable blindness by refusing to think and act rationally, but the problem is not the emotion or pleasure of romantic or sexual attraction.  No matter how intense that attraction is, excusing stupidity by appealing to the "fog" of love is never a legitimate action.  The problem solely lies in the resolve of the individuals who blame their feelings for their own behaviors.

Hypocritical Suspicion Of Technology

Hypocrisy among anti-technology claimants is always irrational, but it is not always equally obvious to the average observer.  Some of it stands out to the point of being impossible to truly conceal.  There are those who literally use electronic technology to disparage electronic technology (a prime example being someone who writes against social media using social media), but there are also those whose hypocrisy might come across as more subtle or socially accepted.

How many people who express concern about the growing presence of technology turn around and enjoy the (potential) simplicity of using a GPS to navigate unfamiliar roads, using a microwave to heat food, or sending an email from a smartphone?  Technology is the ultimate example of the convenience afforded by science.  Electronics in particular offer drastic benefits to human civilization, yet technology is repeatedly the target of slander, dismissal, and mockery.

It is not rare for the same people who view technology with suspicion to appreciate cars, electric heating, and phone calls to loved ones--and for them to do what they can to actively remove obstacles to enjoying these things.  In fact, many people do this rather openly and on a regular basis!  The cognitive dissonance of criticizing technology for how some people use it while simultaneously relying on and selectively approving of technology is stark.

Whoever claims to have a high regard for science while decrying amoral uses of modern technology is comparable to a person who claims to be rational while rejecting rationalism or a person who says they admire Christianity while condemning Mosaic Law.  In each of these cases, thorough hypocrisy is on display.  It will always be the case that criticisms of technology itself are asinine, but to demonize technology while welcoming its benefits betrays a fundamental insincerity or blindness.

The Neutrality Of Power

Power cannot exist apart from a being that possesses it, whatever form it may take.  As such, power has no moral nature of its own; it is used justly or unjustly, competently or ineptly, benevolently or maliciously depending on the motives and actions of whoever has it.  A title or privilege can do nothing on its own.  A crown or seat cannot make make someone evil, nor can the actions of an evil leader reflect poorly on the objects themselves.  Once this is accepted, the usefulness of influence or authority becomes obvious.

It is clear even to those who actively demonize power that it is one of the best tools for manipulation, manipulation being yet another target of fallacious critics.  Both are condemned or treated with gratuitous caution because of how some people might use them despite neither having any inherent connection to evil.  When used within the boundaries of morality, manipulation, which requires social power of at least some kind, is one of the most successful ways to get otherwise incorrigible people to avoid living for their own delusions and fallacies.

As long as it is not used in an immoral way, power is free to be used however the wielder wants--social, political, corporate, and intellectual power cannot be legitimately criticized unless the one who holds the power has actually misused it.  Power, like any other things, is inescapably neutral.  Some may use it with rational or just intentions, and some may use it with irrational or selfish intentions, but power itself is fundamentally amoral.  Potential discomfort or fear on the part of those who do not share a certain kind of power are not valid bases for moral concern--especially if those people do not care about truth or their obligations unless they are pressured to.

Even so, many objections to the holding of power are made precisely because some individuals feel frightened by the thought of someone else having a power that they themselves do not also hold.  Sometimes these fears motivate illogical claims about the nature of power, one of the most popular myths among them being that power literally "corrupts" people, as if one's moral character, free will, and ability to reason all vanish or diminish simply because one is in a position of power.

Perhaps one of the reasons why some people object to some arbitrary amount of power, lack of intelligence aside, is the fear that they themselves would misuse the power they see other people wield.  Of course, to think that one person would abuse power because a different person would abuse power is deeply fallacious and is itself unjust.  The only rational and complete stance towards power is one that fully acknowledges its moral neutrality and the moral permissibility of using it to manipulate those who are unwilling to pursue reason and justice on their own.

Consistency Within Memories

It is impossible to prove an event happened in one's personal history by merely reflecting on a memory of that event, however genuine the memory may seem.  Just as the senses can perceive material objects that do not exist, memories might tell of events that never happened outside of one's mind.  This does not make memories any less real; recollections of past events are a part of reality all the same, just not in the sense that the events necessarily took place in the physical world.  Short of logical proof that one's memories correspond to actual events of the past, what is the best evidence that a recalled event truly did occur?

Consistency with reason and with itself is the minimum requirement for a thing to be true--although consistency alone does not make something true--and thus consistency is the first evidence that should be considered.  It is logically possible for memories that do not conflict with each other (that is, memories that are internally consistent with themselves and other memories) to correspond to actual events, but possibility is not utter confirmation.  Again, internal consistency is a necessary prerequisite to something being true, but this alone does not make memories accurate glimpses into past events.

Since memories of occurrences in the external world must reflect what has happened in the material plane in order to be accurate, the next requirement after logical consistency is evidence in the external world itself.  If one's memories not only do not contradict themselves, but also do not contradict any sensory information (perceived evidences in the external world), then there is greater evidence that they are in fact valid recollections of past events.  Evidence, on its own, proves only that evidence for something exists, but it is an integral part of probabilistic investigation.

Even if told of each of these logical facts, some might refuse to admit that a memory can be perfectly consistent with itself, with other memories, and with sensory perceptions and still not be accurate.  Memories of past events alone can only ultimately prove that the memories themselves exist within one's mind.  Although one can prove that, by logical necessity, the past has existed for at least a moment, there is not even a way to demonstrate that there was a past beyond that single moment.  At the same time, one can logically prove that one's memory does match itself and one's sensory environments with great ease.

Without this alignment of evidences, a conscious being would be adrift in complete confusion about perhaps everything except its immediate grasp of logic and comprehension of its thoughts and perceptions.  If a person is not experiencing such confusion, they can prove to themselves with absolute certainty that, at the very least, their memories are sound in the sense that they contain accurate information about their own mind and present sensory experiences.  Nonetheless, proving the legitimacy of perceptions is not the same as proving that recalled experiences happened as recalled--or that they happened at all.

Music Is Not A Universal Language

Few, if any people, are likely to say that they have never had deeply personal experiences while listening to music at some point in their lives.  According to some, that so many people might affirm the power of music establishes that music is a "universal language," but this is not the case.  Music can certainly stir up an intended emotional reaction even when listeners do not understand the language used by the creators or any associated singers, yet to call music a universal language is to come to conclusions based in nothing but non sequitur assumptions.

As with any actual language, music has no inherent meaning.  The intended meaning is decided by the creator alone, even if music stirs emotions in its audience that the musician did not intend.  The emotional experience of music is itself purely subjective, and uniformity of emotional reactions to specific music would prove nothing except that people shared the same feelings.  Of course, debates over the nature of music alone illustrate that reactions to music are not uniform.

Music, just like spoken or written words, can still be an effective means of emotional communication, yet this is not because an audience is able to know exactly what the musician intended.  Due to its nonverbal nature, music is an even less precise communicative method than language, as communication becomes more and more ambiguous the further it departs from shared use of linguistics--of course, even if two people use the same words with the same meanings in mind, only the ability to gaze into the other person's mind could prove that the intended meaning of the words is identical.

The only perfect method of communication is telepathy.  Short of direct mind-to-mind communication, all that one is left with when trying to interpret another person's words or music is probabilistic evidence.  With words, one can at least operate within linguistic norms that can simplify verbal or written conversations, but with music, the reaction (short of intellectual appreciation) strictly occurs on an emotional, subjective level.  Different individuals and cultures approach music with different associations and emotional experiences, which inevitably means that two people or groups might associate certain music with varying ideas and feelings.

In the same way that some overestimate the epistemological purity of language, some overestimate the epistemological purity of music.  Non-telepathic communication is always arbitrary to some extent, yet language and music are nothing but utilitarian tools for the expression of thoughts, concepts, and feelings to begin with.  The fact that music and norms of genuine language alike are in no way universal does not mean that they have no usefulness, as it only means that they are used with subjective intentions on the part of the "sender" and are not capable of giving the "receiver" absolute certainty about the sender's actual thoughts.

Egalitarianism In Business

In a business context, pressuring a person to selectively express their talents or forcing them to pretend to possess or not possess a talent because of their gender (or ethnicity, for that matter) accomplishes nothing other than the reduction of productivity.  Even if egalitarianism was not useful in such a setting, however, it would still be true that gender does not dictate the nature of anything but one's body--it is still profitable and beneficial to apply egalitarianism in the workplace all the same.  The problem with how many approach gender equality in the business world is not that they neglect this fact, but that they don't go far enough.

Corporate egalitarianism is not only about ensuring men and women are not discriminated against for applying to jobs conservatives associate with the opposite gender.  It is irrational and harmful to pressure men into dangerous jobs and women into trivial jobs, for instance, yet egalitarianism has more applications than fighting discrimination in hiring.  It also has significant ramifications for how the business world handles its marketing: advertisements often exploit socially conditioned gender norms to make a product seem especially relevant to or valuable for men or women respectively.

Though there are numerous ways marketing can appeal to nonexistent links between gender and personality traits, some are more overt than others.  Consider ads for beauty products and video games.  The former is usually emphasized for women, and the latter for men.  Of course, these contra-egalitarian emphases are asinine.  Many men care about their appearance and wish to be physically beautiful; many women enjoy playing video games, even if those games are violent.  Being a man or woman has nothing to do with whether one cares about one's appearance or appreciates video games, and it is thus illogical to endorse advertisement strategies that imply otherwise.

It is not by happenstance that Western marketing subtly or obviously discriminates against men and women in various ways.  After all, culture can influence marketing approaches just as it might influence how men and women are portrayed in entertainment, but marketing can influence how a culture collectively regards men and women in turn.  To approve of sexist motivations behind specific marketing campaigns is to endorse a potentially self-sustaining circle.

That this aspect of discrimination in business is neglected only shows that many companies have yet to consistently embrace the truths of egalitarianism.  If women are intentionally overlooked when a company searches for leaders, sexism is present in that firm.  If men are intentionally funneled into more dangerous or difficult tasks in a company, sexism is present in that firm.  As businesses are criticized for such practices, they must also be criticized for reinforcing the falsities of gender stereotypes.

The Ethics Of Biblical Charity

Poverty and the ethics of charity are among some of the most controversial topics in politics today, receiving extensive attention from all over the political spectrum.  Rather than analyze or discuss poverty rationally, it is normal for people to posit a purely arbitrary or unverifiable line past which one has morally erred in not giving to the poor.  Conservatives and liberals alike might appeal to ambiguous Biblical passages or verses removed from their contexts in order to persuade others of their stances on poverty, even if it is clear that it is nothing more than an emotionally manipulative tactic.

The actual Biblical prescriptions about how to react to poverty are often ignored, for they tend to deviate from the ideas of both political parties.  Since practically every aspect of Biblical ethics contradicts conservative and liberal tenets on some level, this should hardly be surprising to anyone who is familiar with the Bible and contemporary political thought.  Nonetheless, it is not as if the Bible wholly defies the major current stances on how to address poverty.

On one hand, Mosaic Law and the New Testament epistles demand far more of what moderners might call the "middle" or "upper" classes than superficially benevolent but empty goodwill towards the poor--kind words that are never accompanied by anything more are incomplete at best (James 2:15-16).  On the other hand, forced wealth redistribution in any context other than just compensation to victims of certain crimes (see Exodus 21:18-19 or 22:1-3) is tyrannical by Biblical standards, as no one has the right to coerce people into doing that which is not obligatory.

That the Bible calls for aiding the poor does not mean that every person who is not living in immediate poverty is morally required to give to every poor person or charity they encounter.  In other words, while the Bible is very supportive of giving to and helping the poor, there is no obligation to give to any particular individual or organization.  No one has to give to every single poor person they will ever meet.  The Bible only prescribes several specific actions to take on behalf of the poor, some of which by their very nature could only apply to certain people (for example, see Exodus 22:26-27 and Deuteronomy 24:10-15).

It is not the case that merely refraining from giving to any specific person is sinful; it is true, however, that those with the means to give to the less fortunate without harming their own financial stability sin if they go their entire lives without ever attempting to do anything beneficial to the poor.  While the Biblical obligation to help the poor and affirm their human rights applies to all people, many particular acts of charity are themselves only supererogatory.

Imitating Divine Forgiveness

Just as myths about every other aspect of reality are plentiful and injurious, myths about forgiveness are not in short supply.  Misunderstanding the nature of forgiveness can actually make a person more unwilling to forgive under any circumstances, and thus it is counterproductive when advocates of forgiveness misrepresent it.  To show random forgiveness is an act of mercy, although not all mercy is an act of forgiveness, and the Bible compares forgiveness to the cancellation of overwhelming debt in the parable of the unforgiving servant.

It is vital to note that many acts of forgiveness, since they would be mercy as aforementioned, cannot be deserved or obligatory by default.  Mercy is by definition shown when people are not treated justly--not in the sense of being over-punished or having offenses against them ignored, but in the sense that they are intentionally spared from punitive treatment they themselves deserve.  Consequently, since no one has an obligation to let someone escape true justice, mercy is a supererogatory thing that is only cheapened when offered to all people by default [1].

In the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matthew 18:21-35), a king exempts a servant of his from a massive debt.  Despite the servant owing the ruler an extraordinary sum, he was literally "forgiven" from the duty to pay, and yet he refuses to forgive a much smaller debt owed to him by a fellow servant.  The king is enraged, criticizing the servant for failing to forgive a debt when the debtor sincerely requested it after he himself had been forgiven after asking his king for more time to pay the amount he owed.

The parable suggests that God strongly dislikes asking for forgiveness when one has not been willing to forgive those who have asked for it.  However, the often overlooked aspect of the parable is just that: the king does not forgive anyone who does nothing to seek forgiveness!  General forgiveness is not owed to anyone as a human right, but to deny forgiveness to someone genuinely seeking it after one has already been forgiven by God is hypocritical, hence why the specific type of unforgiveness in the parable is condemned by Jesus.

Divine forgiveness is not applied to all people simply because God wishes for all people to be saved (as indicated by Ezekiel 33:11, 1 Timothy 2:3-4, and 2 Peter 3:9).  To say otherwise is to embrace the heretical universalist conception of salvation, which wholly contradicts the Biblical doctrine of annihilationism [2].  If God himself does not forgive the wicked until they repent, what basis could there be for advocating that humans universally forgive other humans before they repent?  Unless someone seeks forgiveness for a genuine offense from whoever they wronged, there is no Biblical obligation to forgive (Luke 17:3-4).

Just as divine forgiveness is not automatically shown to all wrongdoers, there is no need for any person to show forgiveness outside of very specific circumstances.  If I am to truly forgive as God does, I will withhold forgiveness until someone who has wronged me comes and personally asks for it.  Short of that occurring, I and everyone else are not obligated to forgive.  Forgiveness, being a form of mercy, is otherwise not obligatory.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/09/how-to-cheapen-mercy.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/05/a-refutation-of-universalism.html

Life Outside Of The Workplace

When discussing the ethics of the hiring process, gender, ethnicity, and religion are often rightly labeled irrelevant factors when it comes to workplace competence.  It is obvious why these are considered irrelevant: they have no inherent impact on the quality of one's work.  No one performs better or worse in a given professional role simply because they are a man, a woman, and so on.

Despite this, many are still expected to meet arbitrary requirements for "professionalism" outside of the workplace as they hold their jobs.  These expectations are not about ensuring the quality of their work, but they are instead about pressuring people to bow to petty, subjective preferences of those inside or outside of the company.  Those expectations vary depending on what subculture surrounds the worker, but the more conservative or liberal a person's community is, the more likely they are to be told to comply.

What might some of these ostracized behaviors be?  Responsibly using alcohol, sharing nude pictures of oneself, using profanity--each one of these activities, which are Biblically amoral in themselves, could devastate someone's reputation in certain circles.  This, in turn, could impact their reputation at work, which might then influence how they are treated in their professional lives.  Encouraging this gratuitous cycle is to implicitly hold that one's life should revolve around one's occupation.

It is not workers who engage in morally permissible pursuits who are being reckless and irrational, but those in or outside of their firms who expect their entire lives to revolve around the insignificant preferences of others.  No one should not have to worry about innocent behaviors that have no relevance to their occupations leading to them getting fired or shamed at work--or slandered outside of the workplace.

When hiring someone, all that immediately matters when evaluating a candidate is his or her character and skillset.  This leaves no room for hiring based upon arbitrary preferences about amoral things.  In the same way, as a company member becomes more established in their firm, the only things about their personal life that have any relevance are whether they have done something irrational or immoral.  Nothing else matters, regardless of how upsetting an action may be to a community of inept thinkers.

Imagined Conflict Between Biblical Verses On Premarital Sex

Premarital sex, though it is far from the most important moral issue addressed by the Bible and far from the most pressing issue facing Western culture, is a matter that needs to be addressed in the light of reason, as with all other matters.  Christians who claim to want to understand what the Bible says about premarital sex are prone to surround themselves with non sequiturs and red herrings rather than actually admit what the Bible does and does not say about the subject.  In fact, some might even assert that 1 Corinthians 7:2 conflicts with what Exodus 22:16-17 says about premarital sex.

A simple analysis reveals the coherence of both chapters, refuting this assertion.  1 Corinthians 7:2 says that it is better to marry than to commit acts of sexual immorality (including having noncommittal sex), while Exodus 22:16-17 clarifies that consensual sex before a legal marriage is not sinful if marriage follows.  The two parts of the Bible in question simply describe different aspects of a consistent teaching on premarital sex.  The New Testament does not abolish or alter what Mosaic Law says about premarital sex any more than the New Testament abolishes what the Old Testament says about kidnapping, sorcery, or murder.

There is thus nothing about 1 Corinthians 7:2 that contradicts Exodus 22:16-17.  Even if the two passages were in conflict, 1 Corinthians would be the book to ignore: the Old Testament can be true even if the New Testament is not, but the New Testament cannot be true if the Old Testament is not.  As part of Mosaic Law, Exodus is more foundational and important than 1 Corinthians alone could ever be.  Of course, there is no disparity between them.

A single person who needs a sexual outlet is always free to marry.  In some cases, marriage is not only a possibility, but an ideal thing.  This is what 1 Corinthians 7:2 teaches.  At the same time, a single person who has premarital, consensual sex with a single of the opposite gender has not sinned simply because he or she had premarital sex.  Lifelong committment can still be achieved following sex before a legal marriage.  This is what Exodus 22:16-17 teaches.

It is more common for Christians to just ignore Exodus 22:16-17 than it is for them to specifically say that God's own moral revelation on the subject of premarital sex was eventually replaced by a better moral revelation.  However, both of these stances are built on heinous theology that distorts the natures of the Old Testament and New Testament alike.  If one examines both Exodus and 1 Corinthians without making assumptions, it becomes clear that there is no conflict whatsoever.

Movie Review--The Grudge (2020)

"What do we do when we're scared?"
--Detective Muldoon, The Grudge (2020)


Not every movie released in January has to typify why some moviegoers skip visiting theaters during the first month of the year, but some films do little to nothing to overcome the negative reputation of January releases.  The Grudge is one of the latter films.  The 2020 reboot of The Grudge had a great amount of potential, but the execution, from the lack of character development to the inclusion of many jumpscares, holds it back from amounting to a great horror movie.  There are sparks of quality in the film, but none of them are enough to start a fire on their own.


Production Values

For all its missteps, the the new Grudge film does have a very promising setup.  The cast is excellent, the effects are not incomplete, the cinematography is far from dreadful, and the R rating provides more creative freedom.  This only makes the squandering of the production values all the more tragic.  As the end of the movie approaches, it becomes clear that the mysteries of the plot have little to stand on other than the scenes being shown out of chronological order.  Perhaps even worse, the subtlety and restraint of some shots are rejected in favor of strings of jumpscares close to the finale.

Similarly, the abilities of the talented cast are squandered on a script that does not give them the opportunity to truly show how capable they are.  None of the primary actresses and actors butcher their roles; the roles themselves are merely simplistic and limiting.  Even the fact that The Grudge focuses on present day events from the perspectives of detectives, a somewhat rare approach for horror, is not utilized in a way that makes the film stand out as it could have.


Story

Spoilers!

The story is told in a non-linear manner, the scenes jumping back and forth between three timelines that are ultimately connected with a single house.  A "Ju-On," or "grudge," is a spirit left after someone dies in the grip of extreme sadness or anger, and the home in question is a site affected by the curse.


Intellectual Content

Unsurprisingly, The Grudge wastes its subject matter in the same way that it wastes its other sources of potential.  What could have been a thoughtful exploration of what might lead a thorough detective to acknowledge that a spiritual curse seems to be behind linked murders instead becomes a series of connected scenes with incomplete thematic and character development.


Conclusion

It needs to be granted that there was actual promise held by the reboot of The Grudge.  However, practically every element of the movie is either underused or weakened by the mismanagement of some other element.  The R rating itself, something that immediately distinguishes the reboot from the 2004 film it connects to, is not even used to the greatest advantage possible, as many of the kills or more graphic scenes are accompanied by jumpscares or generic plotting that would almost certainly deflate the impact for anyone who appreciates artistic competence in horror.  The Grudge's 2020 reboot ultimately serves as an example of how not to misuse storytelling resources to either bring back an established franchise or create an original story.


Content:
 1.  Violence:  A decaying corpse is found in a car inside of a forest, and the film eventually shows what happened to the driver years before.  A man attempts to kill himself with a gunshot to the head, but he survives, only to remove his own eyes later on.  Macabre imagery is shown at multiple points.
 2.  Profanity:  "Fuck" and "shit," as might be expected in a horror movie with an R rating, are uttered.

Quantum Biology

The only things that must be true of every aspect of reality are summarized in saying that nothing can contradict the laws of logic.  That which is necessarily true cannot be false regardless of what else is true.  Beyond this, a person who claims that anything must be true about everything commits the fallacy of composition, erroneously claiming that what is true of one thing must be true about another.  For example, that one person has a certain motivation or personal skill does not mean that another person shares it.

If one can reach this point, it should not be difficult to realize that it is logically possible for the behavior of matter to differ quite drastically at the macro-scale, the scale of ordinary human experience, and the quantum (or subatomic) scale.  Even though this is a simple logical proof of possibility, many are still shocked when quantum phenomena are said to seem bizarre when compared to "normal" sensory experiences.

Perhaps this is the reason why so many people fail to even bring up the possibility of quantum life forms.  Since the size of a thing is a comparative quality that only has a reference point with regard to some other thing, there could be an entire set of quantum civilizations for which the subatomic scale is as normal as the macroscopic scale is for myself and other similar beings.  It seems that many people are so fixated on the possibility of life forms inhabiting other cosmological bodies, like planets and moons, that they neglect the possibility of quantum life.

Of course, the more basic components of alleged information about quantum physics are enough to confuse many people because of their abnormality.  It is not simply reported quantum particle behaviors that are "abnormal," however.  The details of biological functionality at the subatomic level do not have to mirror those of organisms that inhabit the macroworld.  Biology, after all, is only the study of living matter, and matter does not have to behave identically at different scales (phenomenology, the study of consciousness, is purest when rationalistic introspection, not science, is the focus, and thus consciousness is a tangent issue for basic biology).

What might life be capable of at the quantum level?  Could a "quantum organism" (I have never seen anyone else use this phrase, hence the quotation marks) inhabit two separate spatial locations at once?  Could it live for far longer than lifespans naturally last at the macro-scale?  Would quantum organisms even require the same few necessities that macroscopic life forms need for survival?  As long as something does not violate the laws of logic--an impossible thing, for contradictions cannot exist in actuality because no truth can contradict another--it is entirely possible.

Life could exist at the quantum level, and that life might not only be sentient, but also capable of utilizing the same degree of intelligence humans are capable of.  As the search for extraterrestrial life continues, there is no reason to not also search for indications of quantum organisms.  It must always be remembered that only the laws of logic, not the scientific laws that are familiar in the macroscopic world, dictate what is and is not possible at the quantum level.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/03/size-is-relative-ontology-of-shapes-and.html

The Maturity Of Anger

Anger, despite its potential for motivating people to seek justice and refute damaging errors, is often viewed as immature when it crosses an arbitrary threshold of intensity.  Someone who frequently lives in a state of anger over genuine irrationality might be regarded as childish, easily irritated, or selfish, when it is actually the objector who has earned these titles.  If someone who identifies as a Christian characterises anger as largely immature, moreover, their error is particularly hypocritical.

The Christian who calls anger immature calls God immature by logical extension, for anger is a clear aspect of God's character and nature (Exodus 22:22-24 specifies this, for instance).  God not only harbors anger towards certain individuals, but he also harbors anger of great intensity.  Divine anger is no minor thing, and if humans are obligated to imitate God in his love, there is no reason to pretend like we would not also be in the right to imitate God in his anger, however deep and fierce it may be.

Irrationality, injustice, spiritual apathy, and other serious moral problems should be met with the fury of those who recognize that they are to be condemned and avoided.  It is not that a person who cannot experience intense anger regardless of the circumstances is in moral error, but that tolerance, apathy, and dismissal are inexcusable reactions to evil.  To trivialize evil or react to it only in a mild way is the truly immature response to sin.

The idea that anger is immature except in very specific scenarios, ironically, is itself intellectually and theologically immature.  The only immature uses of anger are outrage over amoral or unimportant things and a total submission to anger, such that anger overpowers one's ability to reason or one's resolve to fulfill one's obligations in spite of whatever one does or does not feel.  Short of these specific situations, anger is only a useful and empowering tool.

Technology And Memory

With each step of progress made by technology, someone is eager to characterize it as dangerous.  Regardless of the benefits that come with evolving technology, slanderous accusations persist.  One accusation that frightens some holds that technology erodes the ability to retain information.  A more developed version of this claim might posit that devices like computers and smartphones inevitably make people rely on them to the exclusion of maintaining an active memory, but this stance is just as flawed as other anti-technology positions.

As is the case with any technological feat, there is no uniform reaction to the increasingly computerized nature of information storage.  Some people might feel at liberty to not commit important information to memory, but technology has neither eliminated the need for remembering things--something it could never do--nor led to a mass abandonment of attempts to memorize.  Others might see technology as a way to store information for the purpose of memorization, as technology can certainly be used in the process of becoming intimately familiar with that information.

Regarding the fact that technology could never erase the need for memorizing things, the critics of technology seem oblivious to the ever-present need for using one's memory.  To even recall which information is stored electronically, one must use one's memory to some extent, making a partial use of memory inescapable.  Without a memory that at least functioned in an internally consistent manner, a person could not even use technology without being confused from one moment to the next!

Because many people who are hostile towards or suspicious of technological progress often express a reference for more traditional information storage methods like books, it is very illuminating to point out the double standards they employ.  The fallacious critics of technology could have made the same incorrect claim that modern devices impair memory about the process of writing when paper became more commonplace.  That they are not against using books and hand-written papers to store information instead of electronic devices testifies to their arbitrariness and hypocrisy.

Instead of blaming technologies that improve the safety and convenience of modern life for personal issues, the public needs to accept that computers, smartphones, and other devices do not sap away the ability to memorize.  A person could enjoy the convenience they offer without forfeiting their capacity to remember miscellaneous information, and they are even capable of being used as useful supplements to human memory.  Emotional dislike of technology, not logical or scientific reasons, are behind this criticism of recent technological trends.