Degrees Of Blind Faith

The push to distinguish "faith" from "blind faith" is a futile effort, for at most one can diminish the amount of assumptions in a faith-based worldview: if a person truly has faith in something, they have leapt beyond the belief in logical truths or the commitment to evidentially reinforced ideas into the unknown.  Of course, the common defense of faith-based epistemology is that faith and reason do not have to be at odds with each other.  While it is true that commitment and reason are not necessarily exclusive, even the smallest assumption and reason are utterly incompatible.

At this point, however, one is talking about a completely different concept than the one referenced by most people, including Christian apologists.  Even the undeserving but popular heads of Christian apologetics organizations, guilty of numerous fallacies, at most only try to increase the arbitrary threshold for whatever evidence they treat as utter proof in the absence of total logical confirmation.  They do not truly distance themselves from the idea of belief or trust in the unproven (if you can prove something, it is impossible to trust it to begin with), only from the phrase "blind faith."

Still, calling faith different than "blind faith" is misleading at best.  Unless "faith" refers strictly to commitment ("faithfulness") rather than to belief, faith inescapably involves an element of blindness.  Differing beliefs in the unproven or unprovable might have varying degrees of assumptions behind them, but there is no such thing as faith--in reference to belief that involves assumptions--that is not blind to some extent.  It is possible to commit to an idea that can merely be supported by evidence without assuming it is true, but to cross that line is to betray even the facade of rationality.

A non-rationalist can admit, perhaps even truthfully, that they have put effort into rejecting or minimizing assumptions in their worldview.  They can rightfully distinguish between a totally blind faith and a faith hinging on a lesser blindness.  What they cannot do is legitimately demonstrate that faith is completely separate from intellectual blindness.  The impossible cannot be done even when its impossibility is denied!

There are certainly degrees of faith, but all faith is in some way blind.  It is commitment to that which has evidence--not belief in that which cannot be logically proven--that is not only not opposed to reason, but its ally.  Unfortunately, the word "faith" has become so deeply associated with belief in the unproven that to even use the word in its other sense, in reference to a commitment based purely on rationalistic evaluation of evidence that would be abandoned at the discovery of contradictory evidence, is itself often pointless.

Technology And Safety

Convenience, entertainment, and safety are the three categories into which all uses of technology in some way reduce down to.  Some uses of technology may fall into multiple categories, but all of them fall into at least one.  Safety, the latter, is one of the must unappreciated benefits of technology for some who have grown accustomed to it, but it is also one of the most overestimated benefits of technology for many of those who have not taken safety for granted.

Yes, electronic and more traditional technology (i.e., door locks) can make homes more secure, online information less susceptible to theft, and general crimes easier to prevent or solve.  However, these measures only provide varying degrees of safety, not an invulnerability to accidents, crime, and loss.  Anyone who expects absolute safety to be a gift bestowed by technology has an incomplete understanding of both technology and reason.

Technology cannot guarantee absolute safety because other technology can be used to counteract it--not to mention the fact that there are other epistemological reasons why technology is incapable of granting perfect safety.  For example, one cannot prove that an electrified fence, security camera, or lock will continue existing in the future.  As with all material objects, there is nothing more than probabilistic estimates that can be made about whether a given material object will even continue to exist from one moment to the next.

Of course, as previously noted, one does not have to consider hypothetically possible metaphysical illusions to realize that looking to technology for absolute safety from other humans is to seek what cannot be found.  There is always the possibility of the technology in question malfunctioning, being disabled by other people, or simply having its effectiveness intentionally sidestepped (without disabling) by the use of other technology.  Even on a "practical" level rather than a speculative metaphysical one, the safety of technology is limited at best.

Technology in all of its diverse manifestations can certainly increase the probability of one's safety in a given place or at a given time, but anything more is an epistemological impossibility.  A lack of absolute safety does not exclude degrees of high safety, yet a high degree of safety does not entail perfect, impenetrable safety.  Probability and proof can be quite distinct!  Nothing produced by science, no matter how novel or comparatively complex it is, can promise humans that which cannot be promised.

The Incompatibility Of Christianity And Pacifism

The total advocation of nonviolence is ironically one of the most destructive and unjust moral ideologies a person could put into practice, not to mention a wholly unbiblical one.  Pacifism is nonetheless mistaken by those who viciously distort the words of Jesus for an enlightened philosophy that promotes human flourishing.  There is nothing contrary to Biblical ethics about having a personal, subjective preference for minimizing or avoiding conflict when possible, but it is deeply contrary to major portions of the Bible to claim that the instructions to "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39) in any way establish any sort of Biblical pacifism.

Not only does a person only have one cheek to turn to, but the Bible plainly endorses everything from self-defense to warfare to capital punishment in certain circumstances.  Even the New Testament, which is so often held up as an example of "progressive revelation" when it comes to ethics, is perfectly consistent with the Torah's laws about violence (either prohibiting certain forms of it or calling for certain forms of it).  Indeed, the God of Acts and Revelation can hardly be said to be opposed to the infliction of death upon the unworthy!  Nothing about the so-called "New Testament God" contradicts or supercedes the moral laws permitting or condemning various acts of violence in the Old Testament.

Of course, the Bible has precise limitations on each of these three categories.  For example, a person who deals a fatal blow to an intruder during a home invasion is exempted from any murder or manslaughter charges if the ordeal happened at night, whereas he or she is "guilty of bloodshed" if the killing blow is delivered in daylight (Exodus 22:2-3).  Going to war without a legitimate need is a moral abomination by Biblical standards, as is refusing to offer soldiers on one's own side a chance to exempt themselves from combat and refusing to offer a military opponent (with the sole exception of a group God specifically wants to be exterminated) an initial chance to surrender before violence ensues (Deuteronomy 20:5-12).

As for capital punishment, the Biblical methods of execution come nowhere near the brutality of pagan and contemporary secular punishments--when not guided by Mosaic Law, humans tend to resort to punishments like crucifixion, flaying, or lifetime imprisonment with the risk of repeated rape.  Mosaic Law prescribes no method that is meant to artificially prolong any suffering of the criminal and has laws that are specifically intended to prevent abusive behaviors from being inflicted on criminals out of emotionalistic rage or sadism.  Indeed, stoning, one of the most familiar Biblical execution methods, might involve minimal suffering, as a single stone could reduce a person to unconsciousness [1].

It should be clear that at least some of these Biblical demands for or allowances of particular forms of violence are more than just "necessary evils"; they are fundamental elements of justice itself.  It is actually immoral to avoid violence in some cases, yet there are always exact boundaries to every justified act of violence called for in the Bible.  None of the violence commanded or permitted by the Christian God are gratuitous within the moral framework in question.  Consequently, it is genuinely dangerous to encourage a total abstinence from violence for the sake of safety and justice.  It is always better to lash out at sincere pacifists with intimidating verbal violence than it is to pretend for even a moment that the Bible is a pacifist book.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-process-of-stoning.html

Game Review--Starlink: Battle For Atlas (Switch)

"The Wardens lifted me from darkness . . . They chose me.
--Grax, Starlink: Battle for Atlas


Starlink is one of the few games on the Switch that simulates social cooperation and the potential back-and-forth nature of strategic occupation with the same excellence that the God of War series handles its combat, meriting praise for the diverse number of elements it handles without having any of them displace or overpower the others.  The development of the characters (yes, Starfox is a playable one!) might not be the primary focus of the story, but the secondary characters seamlessly fit into the world of the game.  Not only do the characters make the most of their few scenes, but the creators seem to have a sincere appreciation of science, and the in-game world realistically depicts how tactical victory over an area can be a fleeting thing.

Production Values

Intense blue, red, green, and purple objects or environments await players across the variety of planets in Starlink.  The graphics stand out for their potency and consistency--yes, there is some pop in scenery, but I never had difficulties with the frame rate or colors.  When I fought my first Prime, a giant robotic enemy, the landscape was bathed in a vibrant red color, the Prime itself blocking the sunlight as it moved in front of me.  The quality of the visuals is accompanied by excellent voice acting, a welcome thing in a game filled with side characters of various extraterrestrial species.  Different characters clearly convey emotional fluctuations in cutscenes and during gameplay, even if a given character doesn't speak particularly often.

Gameplay

The player never exist his/her ship, but Starlink makes the most of this "restriction."  Not only can the ship traverse a planet's surface fairly quickly, but it can switch between hovering slightly above the ground or directly flying above at whim, the latter allowing one to leave the atmosphere and seamlessly transition to outer space.  Each planet is full of tasks and objectives.  The completion of these missions and objectives brings more of that world under the control of the player's faction, but Legion's forces and random pirates might try to push back and reclaim territory.

Upon first visiting some planets, you may need to defeat a Prime, a powerful, quadrupedal machine that can plant Extractors, which can themselves send out smaller machines called Imps and Cyclopes.  Defeating Primes subsequently weakens the Dreadnaught, a Legion spacecraft.  Planets cannot initially be expected to remain relatively safe unless you make allies that can guard areas and withstand subsequent assaults.  These allies can exchange electrum (the Atlas system's primary currency) for collected objects, dispatch friendly patrolling units, and gather resources.

In order to defeat Legion and the space outlaws, of course, you need to utilize the ship's weaponry of choice well.  The two weapons (one is situated on each wing) can be switched out at any time from the pause menu, and sometimes switching is a necessity.  Frost missiles, a flamethrower, and even a gravity well weapon are just some of the devices in the player's potential arsenal.  Not only are these weapons especially effective against particular enemy types, but they can be modified extensively as the story unfolds.

Story

Spoilers!

An alien being named Judge is discovered by St. Grand, an astrophysicist, who then seeks to discover where the being came from.  During a starship battle, however, he is abducted by a figure named Grax, a figure who thinks he has been chosen by an ancient race called the Wardens.  Star Fox and his cohorts are in pursuit of Star Wolf, but form an alliance with St. Grand's companions.


Intellectual Content

Moreso than many other games, ironically, Starlink establishes a genuinely science-oriented atmosphere, with everything from the patrols of autonomous or friendly explorers to the rewards for collecting previously unidentified resources or scanning unfamiliar life forms.  In fact, information about a new species can only be obtained by scanning three individual members of that species.  Starlink is not wholly based around the notions of scientific exploration and analysis, but these themes are woven into the game in a very natural manner.


Conclusion

One of the Switch's most expansive and well-constructed games, Starlink stands out for its scope, colorful graphics, and realistic way that a planet can fall in and out of the player's control, depending on how planetary alliances are handled.  Switch owners even get to let Starfox pilot his signature Arwing, and other pilots can even be paired with the Arwing, giving the Switch version of Starlink additional content inaccessible to those who play on other consoles.  If nothing else, Starfox fans will likely enjoy the many similarities the seemingly ignored franchise shares with Starlink.  It isn't another Starfox game, but Starlink certainly shares some of its DNA.


Content:
 1.  Violence:  Enemy ships or machines can be destroyed, but there is no gore of any kind.

The Survival Of Racism

The days of plantation slavery in America are over, but racism against blacks is far more versatile than any forced slavery could ever be.  One mistake (of many) of some in conservative circles is to imagine that the end of slavery signalled the end of racism towards African Americans, as if it is impossible or unlikely for the ideas and attitudes that motivated this form of slavery to survive in slavery's absence.

Racism does not have to look like whites treating blacks like farm animals or blacks shooting whites that move into black-dominated neighborhoods (yes, racism against whites is typically ignored or unjustly downplayed).  To privately stereotype or otherwise invisibly discriminate against someone because of his or her skin color might not be as outwardly destructive as the travesty of American slavery, but it is no less racist to do so.

This is how established racism can survive something like the gradual movement towards social equality after the Civil War.  A person bent on living out an unsound or unjust assumption can always try to find a way to express their assumption(s) in a less socially opposed way, after all.  Dismantling one cultural norm may leave others in need of their own destruction, even if the uprooted and existing norms share common ideology.

That present American culture has long since moved away from normalizing the idea of whites owning blacks in no way means that blacks do not face discrimination in quieter or less vicious ways (whites certainly do as well, but it is often more obvious when blacks are the victims).  It is not that there have not been major victories in combating racism against blacks, but that racism does not need to be as overt and malicious as race-based slavery.

Those who pretend like racism that is anywhere near the same degree of injustice as American slavery is still present in the United States are delusional--but the same is true of anyone who thinks that the absence of slavery equates to a thorough racial equality that permeates all aspects of American culture.  Just like sexism against men and women, racism can be far more subtle, receiving acceptance even by people who would otherwise condemn it.

The Grasp Of Language

For all its advantages, language is far from the grandest example of human achievement.  Indeed, the presence of developed languages is an obvious indicator of social sophistication, but it is hardly a sign of anything much more than a communicative tool with utilitarian benefits.  The grasp of language is not anywhere near the ultimate foundation of human knowledge and cognition, as both exist apart from and prior to the very existence or usage of language.

After all, a state of total unfamiliarity with every developed language--or even the complete inability to use spoken language--would not doom someone to be incapable of reasoning or understanding their mental states or sensory perceptions.  It would simply prohibit them from using words to communicate their thoughts, feelings, and perceptions to other non-telepathic beings.  The difference is enormous!

A hypothetical person who could not utter words would not be adrift in stupidity or confusion any more than someone who can speak. They could still remember, reflect, and reason; they could still have thoughts, emotions, and sensory experiences.  Language may aid some people in introspectively analyzing their experiences, and it certainly allows people who would otherwise only be able to communicate through gestures or other actions to more precisely explain themselves.  What it does not do is grant the ability to reason.

Yes, some degree of intelligence is required to invent or use any language, no matter how "primitive" or comparatively shallow a language is to another.  However, just as the use of eloquent speech does not prove that someone is a thoroughly or deeply rational person--many eloquent speakers are no less prone to fallacies and inept worldview construction than more "ordinary" communucators--the lack of articulate speech or speech itself does not mean a being is unintelligent.

Language has the capacity to facilitate the identification of certain categories as some people think to themselves, and to deny this is to embrace error.  At the same time, while established languages can provide a framework that aids personal reflection even apart from a social context, they are not responsible for the human intellect or for human self-awareness.  Both of these components of human consciousness are the cornerstones of thought, not any linguistic construct.

The Practicality Of Logic

Logic is the only tool that can soundly navigate people to and around abstract metaphysical and epistemological truths, but it is also the only tool that can soundly bring people to facts about practicality.  Rather than always being polar opposites, the abstract and the practical share common philosophical ground: both are intertwined by necessity due to the fact that reason governs all things.

Still, the two are often treated like they are completely separate, as if the abstract laws of logic do not underpin the whole of everyday life, from the most mundane of events to the most personally exciting things, just as they underpin all else.  The most basic or dull of occurrences is just as much a matter of logic as a deep philosophical issues.  The difference, of course, is that the latter is far more important.

That epistemological, metaphysical, and existential matters are more important than the practical details of life does not mean that practicality is if no value, however.  The practical appeal of an idea does nothing to establish its veracity or falsity, but there is no reason to completely neglect how rationalism and philosophy intersect with practicality.  To think that rationalism does not hold ramifications for all things is delusional.

Reason certainly has its higher uses, but this does not eliminate the practical elements of human life, much less render reason irrelevant to them.  The laws of logic are the key to all accessible knowledge about metaphysics--and they are also the key to managing the practical components of daily life.  There is no conflict between these truths, just as there is and cannot be conflict between any other truths.  Logic encompasses all aspects of reality.

A Myth About Lingerie

Due to personal and cultural factors, some clothing is more likely to arouse men and women when worn by the opposite gender.  Of course, sexual attraction and physiological arousal are by no means automatically triggered in all cases when someone of the opposite gender wears such clothing, but some clothing types may elicit sexual arousal even when there is no sexual attraction to or interest in the person wearing them.

It is easy to demonstrate that some people react sexually to the sight of lingerie on the body of the opposite gender.  It is easy to demonstrate that many people seem to perceive lingerie in a sexual way.  That some of them simultaneously reject the idea that clothing like bikinis is sexual only shows that they do not go far enough in distinguishing culturally popular ideas from rational ones, even if they at least get the former correct.

Lingerie is no more sexual than coats, jeans, or dress shirts are--in other words, it is not sexual at all.  It has simply been associated with sexual arousal because the subjective sexual excitement of some people at the sight or thought of lingerie has been mistaken for proof that the material itself is inherently sexual.  Can lingerie be used to facilitate sexual excitement?  Of course.  Nevertheless, other clothing can too, and to draw lines allegedly separating "sexual" and nonsexual clothing is to indulge in an arbitrary illusion.

A personal or cultural association of lingerie with sexuality, even a very explicit one, does not mean that there is a line past which clothing has a sexual nature.  It only means that an individual or culture (as a whole, even if it is not true of every individual man or woman) perceives some clothing in a sexual way.  Just as bikinis are nonsexual even if some people interpret them in a sexual manner, lingerie is nonsexual, even if it might be worn or enjoyed for sexual reasons.

To say otherwise is no less stupid than insisting that suits or jeans are sexual because some people find them sexually appealing.  Of course, few people are ever willing to consistently look beyond cultural ideas, and thus very few people would realize something like this on their own.  It is paradoxical for clothing that is almost wholly associated with sexual excitement to have no inherent connection to sex or sexuality, after all, and that fact can make the realization all the more satisfying.

All Science Is Anecdotal

The masses may be woefully ignorant of the nature of logic, but, despite the fact that science clearly is treated as the forefront of Western civilization rather than reason, they are also woefully ignorant of scientific epistemology.  I do not merely mean this in the ways I have addressed here many times before [1], but I mean that people who claim to love the "certainty" of science usually accept whatever scientific ideas are said to be peer reviewed or favored by popular scientists.  As anyone who chooses scientific autonomy over scientists' claims knows, science is about empirical observation, not hearsay!

No one needs to hear from a scientist before they can make personal observations about gravity, decay, and general physics on their own--everyday experiences provide some empirical information about these things.  It is not as if no one could perceive gravity unless they had a book, an internet article, or a scientist with them!  Scientific events are a fundamental part of sensory life, and all one must do to understand at least basic correlations is to look for them and rationally reflect on what one finds.  However, to simply accept a scientific claim from someone else as likely to be true without direct experience is irrational.

Although many people seem to accept the claims of scientists about common phenomena like gravity with little to no pushback or contemplation, the fallacies are compounded when the accepted claims are about things that one cannot even perceive under normal circumstances.  The quantum world and the solar system, both of which are completely unobservable from the ordinary person's perspective, cannot be known indirectly through the hearsay of others, and yet to admit that one cannot know anything beyond what reason can prove and what one's own sensory experiences reveal is considered intellectual heresy.

If someone says they want "scientific evidence" as opposed to "personal anecdotes," they show that they have little to no understanding of what science is--and that they are completely willing to agree with what someone says about scientific events based upon their reputation.  The scientist who spends his or her days repeatedly observing the same phenomena does not derive scientific ideas from anything other than personal experiences (and, hopefully, rationalistic analysis of them), just as an "ordinary" person has no basis for expecting scientific events apart from personal experiences.  There is not such thing as science that is not based on subjective experience: all science is anecdotal.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/12/how-western-culture-overestimates.html

Imagination And The Senses

Imagination and the senses have a relationship that is not as simple as the latter providing the former with the entirety of its foundation, but it is also not as simple as the former preceding absolutely everything that the latter experiences.  Here, the focus is on the process of imagining material objects, not on imagination as it relates to purely abstract logical concepts, which material objects have no direct relevance to.  Rather, the matter at hand is to what extent sensory experiences play in providing imagination with an arsenal of concepts that can be assembled in one's mind.

It is not impossible to imagine an object that can be observed in the external world before one has actually seen it, just as it is not impossible to conceive of a logically possible object that may not even exist in the world of one's perceptions at all.  This is what allows some people to think of new objects they wish to create, objects that they might have no direct experience with.  In either case, the process may or may not literally involve mental imagery of the object or concept in question, but there is nothing inaccessible about the mere concepts of objects or creatures.

Of course, it is unlikely that many people would come to certain concepts of external objects apart from some kind of baseline sensory experience.  Reason and introspection do allow for plenty of reflection on their own, but it is not probable that one would think about the concept of an apple or a stone without the senses.  It is not that one must see something to imagine it; it is that there would be little to prompt such imaginings if one had seen nothing at all.  Information about the concepts of specific material items is still simply unlikely to surface in a vacuum.  While imagination does not totally depend on the senses, basic experiences with the latter shape the foundation from which the former is used. 

It is reason, however, not the senses, that ultimately dictates what imagination can and cannot do.  That logic can be wielded apart from the senses is what makes imagination possible even when the senses are not directly responsible for supplying it with concepts or imagery: logical truths can be easily grasped even in the total absence of sensory stimulation because they are immediately understood by the intellect, which is a component of consciousness and not something created by the senses.  This is why things can be imagined before they are seen for the first time and why that which is visible can inspire imaginings of that which seems to not be present in the external world.

Imagination, contrary to what many think, is as confined by the metaphysical existence of reason just as much as everything else (though the two are not opposed [1]), and the accessibility of reason independent of sensory experiences means that existing or nonexistent things alike could be imagined beforehand.  How else could someone think of a scenario they have never experienced?  How else could someone hypothesize the presence of a material entity they have not actually seen?  It is the a priori nature of reasoning that permits this--even if imagination often needs the senses to send it in a certain direction, one can always go beyond what the senses provide.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/reason-does-not-contradict-imagination.html

The Nuance Of Truth

Nuance encompasses the complexities, subtleties, and deeper details of an idea as they relate to each other, manifesting itself across a great deal of philosophy's universal territory.  The complex nature of certain aspects of reality cannot be tossed aside without the forfeiture of rationality.  Indeed, a grasp of nuance involves at least some minimal amount of intelligence.  It is nonetheless the case that nuance is not the ultimate arbiter of truth.

The absence of nuance may be mistaken for an absence of significance or veracity.  Moreover, some people go beyond succumbing to this superficial confusion.  They may even reject an idea because it is allegedly not nuanced enough, even though this is an inherently invalid basis for rejecting anything at all.  Of course, nuance and truth do overlap in many cases.  To deny this is to deny a large component of miscellaneous truths.

Truth is often nuanced, sometimes to the point of the simultaneous veracity of certain concepts being paradoxical (truths are paradoxical when they seem to conflict but do not).  What this does not mean is that nuance is a requirement for an idea to be true.  Reason itself is the simplest thing possible, and yet it is also the key to understanding the complexities of various truths.  However, not all truths are paradoxical or complex in themselves.

Sometimes a fact might have no other nature than that which it appears to have.  This does not mean that a fact is unimportant or not worth knowing.  Yes, many of the most important logical facts are precise and sometimes quite complex, but importance is not synonymous with complexity.  Each characteristic can be held by an idea independently or at the same time; neither excludes or necessitates the other.

There is a deep nuance tied to the very nature of many truths, but nuance does not make a concept reflect reality.  Only those who are willing to make assumptions would think that an idea is even more likely to be true if it is more specific, abstract, or complicated than another given idea.  Nuance can be exciting and even intoxicating to some thinkers--at least in some cases--but it is only a byproduct of the veracity of an idea rather than the reason why something is true.

How Democracy Can Invite Tyranny

Simply recognizing the vulnerability of democracy is not the same as using a slippery slope fallacy: democracy is philosophically invalid not because of how it might be used, but because of what it is.  Nonetheless, the instability of democracy is worth addressing, as is the potential ease of appointing an unjust leader.  As a democracy gets purer, the country becomes more unstable and vulnerable.  Democracy is often held up as a noble and enlightened form of government, but it offers only the flimsiest defense against the worst kinds of tyranny.

All that is necessary for a thorough tyrant to come to power--and remain in power--in a democracy is the consent of 51% of the population.  No matter how unjust, hypocritical, or dangerous a leader is, democracy offers no protection other than the hope that the masses will happen to change their minds.  Any perceived protection from tyranny offered by democracy is either purely superficial at best or entirely illusory.  While democracy may appear safe to intellectually shallow observers, it is far from safe!

A supporter of democracy ceases to live consistently with their political worldview the moment they think someone needs to step in to stop a leader backed by even a slight majority.  The only truly democratic response when the majority is adrift in madness or powerless to stop the tyrant they placed in office is one of submission to the majority or the tyrant it installed.  Of course, by the time a staunch proponent of democracy sees its folly, it will likely be too late.

Now, democracy is not an erroneous system because of what might happen.  Slippery slopes are philosophically irrelevant to the legitimacy or truth of any idea, even when that idea could be used (or, in some cases, misused) in catastrophic ways.  It is not even the fact that the majority is likely to make stupid decisions that renders democracy an invalid form of government.  Rather, it is the fact that democracy does not determine truth that means democratic agreement has no place in politics, as politics is a matter of applying worldviews to government, and all worldviews are either true false.

Democracy is one of the most asinine forms of government that could possibly be implemented (yes, it is nothing more than the joke that the Game of Thrones series finale treats it as).  As long as a group of people--or a lone ruler--is not intellectually or morally in the wrong, the fears, anxieties, and objections of their opponents are good for nothing more than mockery.  Whether those in fear are in the minority or majority is irrelevant.  In politics, like in all things, the only thing that truly matters is who is in the right.

Complemtentarianism Promotes Female Laziness

There is a much greater focus on how complementarianism treats men as if they can sidestep certain Biblical obligations than there is on how women are allowed--or even expected--to sidestep their obligations as well.  Complementarianism (or at least the common forms of it) does trivialize some moral offenses if they are committed by men, but what of the stupidity and shirking of responsibility that complementarianism allows women to get away with?  Even many egalitarians seem to not realize or want to admit that women are treated by complementarians as if they are largely exempt from miscellaneous obligations.  Indeed, complementarianism directly promotes laziness on the part of women.

Of course, complementarianism can easily lead to mothers isolating themselves to the point of feeling enslaved to their children and depriving themselves of free time for the sake of family.  There are ways in which complementarianism thrusts women into dramatically exaggerated responsibilities.  However, this is totally irrelevant to the fact that complementarian women almost inevitably welcome habitual laziness in other areas of their lives.  Complementarian ideology directly and indirectly influences women to make intellectual, spiritual, and financial laziness a prominent part of their lives.

Whereas complementarianism encourages men to be hypersexual and violent, it encourages women to pretend like they have to put little to no effort into autonomous worldview formation, financial development, and so on.  Women are outright told to take little to no initiative themselves for many things.  This certainly confines them in a way that treats women as if they do not have the ability to think competently and better their lives, which should strike anyone as obviously insulting to women, but it also literally teaches women to do very little (or sometimes nothing) to rationally (rationalistically) reflect on reality or take financial pressures off of their boyfriends or husbands.

Women are likely to be thought of highly in complementarian circles when they waste opportunity after opportunity to truly develop themselves intellectually and spiritually.  Some women might even appreciate that almost nothing is expected of them.  For those that would squander whatever greater degree of autonomy they are excluded from if they had it to begin with, it might be a relief to simply expect men to do most things for them, as if it is logical or just to demand that men do more for women than women should do for men.  Complementarian ideas, in this case, make some women feel better about their own unwillingness to put genuine effort into certain aspects of their lives.

Complementarianism needs to be fought first and foremost because its claims about gender dictating psychological characteristics and talents are objectively false by logical necessity (meaning that the Bible would be false if it did teach complementarianism), but it also needs to be condemned for how it explicitly teaches men and women to forgo obligations and needs that both genders are bound to.  Men and women have the same need for intellectual and spiritual autonomy.  After all, obligations that apply to both men and women are the only kind of obligations that exist according to Biblical ethics!

Morality And Taste

The taste of food to a given individual is a subjective matter, as is conceded by practically everyone.  One person may crave what another person despises, and vice versa: the appreciation of food is nothing other than the result of having certain perceptions and preferences.  Perhaps because almost everyone seems to admit that one's taste in food is subjective, the taste of food is often contrasted by moral objectivists (Christian apologists in particular) with conscience, which is widely but falsely claimed to be utter confirmation that specific moral obligations exist.  Conscience, being subjective, is entirely incapable of proving such a thing, although the subjective nature of conscience does not mean that objective morality does not exist [1].

In the same way, however, one's subjective enjoyment or dislike of a particular food has nothing to do with whether the food itself is objectively better or worse than a different type of food.  Anyone who thinks the subjectivity of taste and conscience provides knowledge of the objective quality of food and existence of moral obligations is delusional, but so is the person who thinks the subjectivity of taste or conscience means there is no such thing as objective food quality or morality.  The same logical truths apply to both morality and food: in both cases, conscience and taste have absolutely no demonstrable metaphysical or epistemological connection with moral obligations and the quality of food.

If the subjective experience of tasting food cannot prove if the food is objectively better or worse than other food--and only a fool thinks it can even establish that there is such a thing as objective quality of food on its own--then the subjective experience of moral feelings cannot prove that some things are immoral, much less which things are immoral.  To realize this is to simply affirm a basic requirement of logical consistency.  Of course, almost no one who believes conscience proves the existence of morality actually thinks that the subjective experience of tasting food proves which food is better than others; in fact, they often contrast the two explicitly.

It should be immediately clear that the existence, nature, and epistemology of morality are far more important matters than the quality and taste food could ever be, and it is utterly asinine to pretend otherwise.  The comparison is not meant to trivialize the importance of ethics in any way.  Instead, it illustrates that many Christian apologists not only approach moral epistemology from inherently fallacious grounds (supposing that they can "know" both that morality exists and what their moral obligations are through purely subjective feelings), but they also fail to even treat other issues besides morality in a consistent manner.

They commit inverse fallacies when discussing morality and other topics involving a split between knowledge of one's subjective experience and knowledge of the reality beyond the experience.  If they were honest and rational, they would freely admit that a reliance on conscience is irrelevant and even poisonous to the pursuit of moral knowledge.  A sincere moralist would actually recognize that it is wholly dangerous for people to simply do what their consciences dictate, for the consciences of different individuals pull them in conflicting, destructive, and often hypocritical directions.  If one cares about morality, one must give up the idea that one's moral feelings reveal anything about reality beyond the existence and nature of one's feelings.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/11/two-mistaken-ideologies-about-conscience.html

Game Review--Doom II (Switch)

"You have won!  Your victory has enabled humankind to evacuate earth and escape the nightmare.  Now you are the only human left on the face of the planet."
--Loading screen, Doom II


Doom II: Hell on Earth, simply called Doom II in the Switch eShop, has been rereleased on current consoles, likely in anticipation of Doom: Eternal.  The massive differences in the visuals and nature of the first-person gameplay between the recent Doom games and the first two are blatant from the beginning--not that Doom II has nothing to offer in 2020!  The Switch port of Doom II contains the core game and additional content, including the Master Levels expansion, but the main campaign offers a far longer playthrough than one might expect after the early levels, which gradually become far more complicated.

Production Values

The graphics are wholly, clearly outdated, but the game itself has been ported to the Switch well.  Since Doom II: Hell on Earth is such an old game, the fact that its visuals look horrendously unrealistic by comparison to the graphics of many modern games does not mean they looked terrible at the time of release.  However, it may be very jarring for players accustomed to recent video games to see Doom II's graphics if they have never played or seen the game before.  The audio is still clear, though the soundtrack has a very "retro" style.

Gameplay

One of the aspects of Doom II that is most likely to stand out to a modern player is that the gameplay is far more simplistic than what many are accustomed to.  That is not to say that it is a bad game or that it offers no potential enjoyment to modern gamers, but it is distinctly from another era.  Numerous gameplay mechanics that are now commonplace are completely absent.  You cannot even look up or down!  In fact, shooting in the same direction as an enemy--if you are close enough--hits them even if they are above or below you.  There is no jump mechanic, but sprinting can help you get across small gaps.

Worthy of mention is the loss of all weapons except for the pistol upon death--save at key intervals, and load saved games rather than restart a mission with no heavy firepower.  If one can tolerate archaic features like this, one will find that Doom II remains a fine shooter with plenty of pixelated brutality, classic weapons, and keycard searches.  Yes, the old graphical limitations do not stop the marine from inflicting major visual damage on the demons of Hell using everything from shotguns to a plasma rifle to the BFG, otherwise known as the "big fucking gun."  Ammunition is abundant and the demons are many!

The level design is unfortunately not as consistent as the combat, with the environmental complexity gradually increasing for the most part until level 19, which one might be forced to use internet walkthroughs to complete.  The inability to look up and down can be a major obstacle when standing on certain heights, as you simply cannot see what you might be about to fall down into on onto.  Because some of the item pickups require landing below in precisely the right location, players who are not used to the more limited camera range might become very frustrated at specific parts.

Story

There is not much of a story to spoil, so I will not use my typical spoiler disclaimer.  The campaign of Doom II opens with no exposition or dialogue and immediately thrusts players into a series of environments infested with demons.  The difference between the settings of the first and second Doom games is that the second takes place on earth, as the name suggests, while the original only has to do with Mars, its moons, and Hell.


Intellectual Content

The hardware and software limitations of gaming at the time of Doom II's initial release certainly hinder the platforming, exploration, and general intellectual nature of the game.  Nevertheless, there are secrets in each level that can be found by luck or by careful observation.


Conclusion

While waiting for Doom: Eternal, Switch players who can handle playing far older games might find Doom II makes them appreciate newer Doom games all the more.  Doom II is far from the most creative, deep, emotional, or intellectual game ever made.  The creators did very little to give it a story, much less to build the franchise's lore in any significant way.  Despite these flaws, Doom II is still a fine example of what early gaming was like and a potent reminder of how far Doom has come.


Content:
 1.  Violence:  The animations may look ancient, but plenty of blood appears when an enemy is killed.

Liberty From Societal Conditioning

Whoever has not systematically embraced rationalism is an inevitable hostage to personal assumptions or societal conditioning, no matter how true those assumptions may turn out to be.  The person who simply relies on assumptions, of course, is likely oblivious even to the fact that their worldview rests entirely on blind and arbitrary beliefs.  Ignorance of this can lead to a self-perpetuating cycle, especially when an entire civilization is immersed in it.

Since many people find it more appealing to identify with a great portion of their culture's random and potentially self-contradictory ideas than to exercise intellectual autonomy, it is hardly unusual to find that few are willing to even consider that philosophical assumptions have no epistemological value.  Certainty, liberation, and originality (in the form of autonomous reasoning at the very least) await all who are willing to side with reason, yet the majority has chosen to remain on a path of ignorance, inconsistency, and apathy.

Apart from a rationalistic evaluation of one's full belief system--one that is accompanied by an utter rejection of that which cannot be proven--one is nothing more than a product of one's own fallacies and any which may have been inherited from one's society.  Perhaps one's worldview may be correct, but there is absolutely no guarantee until one has held up everything to the light of reason after realizing the self-verifying nature of logic.  There is no other way to obtain liberty from societal conditioning (not that anyone has to succumb to it to begin with).

Beyond intellectual competence, though, there is much to gain from rationalism on a subjective level, and not merely on an objective one.  While alignment with reason brings certainty, it can also bring relief; while reason brings accuracy, it can also bring empowerment.  Logical truths are objectively correct and it is objectively useful to be familiar with them in both a philosophical and practical sense, but the benefits of rationalism can be deeply personal as well.

Of course, the very nature of logical truths is that they are true no matter what a group's collective attitude towards them is.  If truth matters, subjective appreciation of reason is secondary at best to its intrinsic veracity, not to mention the way in which it lifts one out of error and ignorance.  The only way to ensure one is not enslaved to individual or cultural preferences is to recognize that reason alone can deliver people from a sea of uncertainty, abandon any ideas that cannot be logically established as true, and remain consistent from that point onward.

Negative Originality

Originality can be a deeply empowering way to discover neglected or previously unknown truths, and it is also manifested in the use of reason to autonomously discover truths that have already been identified.  Often, originality is treated as something positive--and it certainly does show that a person is too independent to be an unwitting hostage to whatever cultural ideas might swirl around them.  It is praised, looked upon as a desirable and admirable trait.

Not all originality of either type is praiseworthy, however.  Every person who has discovered and embraced a fallacious idea without social influence or who has personally embraced a fallacious idea before anyone else even recognized it is original, but they have not used originality in rational ways.  Autonomy and (where applicable) novelty go hand in hand with genuine, thorough rationalism, and any sincere seeker of truth should grasp this, yet neither autonomy nor novelty is an indication that a worldview is true, much less verifiable.

If a metaphysical or epistemological heresy holds any power over a given society or person, there must have been someone who first grasped the idea.  There may also be those who came to the idea on their own even if they were not the first ones to do so.  A denial that either involves originality is outright false.  Nevertheless, this is negative originality, for it reveals the stupidity, inconsistency, or intellectual blindness of the one who discovers it.  Whatever autonomy or novelty is present has not contributed to anything philosophically sound.

Autonomy--at a minimum, the autonomous reflection on logic, basic experiences, and the claims of others--is a mandatory requirement for intellectual soundness.  A person is neither rational nor original if they look to something other than reason itself for incontrovertible revelations about reality.  Nevertheless, even someone who seeks out and identifies with fallacious beliefs due to their own personal contemplation is indeed exercising originality.  It is just that they are not combining the originality of autonomy with the immutable light of reason.

Love Of Pleasure

The mere love of pleasure and hedonism are not only quite distinct, but they do not even resemble each other up close whatsoever.  It is one thing to enjoy and seek out pleasure, even if pleasure is a very high personal  priority; it is something else entirely to suppose that pleasure is the ultimate good or perhaps even the only thing of any significance.  The latter alone is incompatible with Biblical ethics, for the love of pleasure is not an enemy of Christian spirituality.

Pleasure of various kinds, when understood from a genuinely Biblical standpoint, can actually strengthen one's relationship with God by inspiring a gratefulness for the fact that many things Christians have considered sinful are completely innocent on their own.  The human mind and body were intended to experience pleasure.  Pleasure itself is not a result of sin, even though some people may subjectively find particular sins pleasurable.

Inversely, a relationship with God, the love of justice, and the love of reason can also be very pleasurable.  Certain sins might be pleasurable for certain people, but pleasure is never the problem.  Pleasure is not an incidental or trivial component of human life, as evangelicals may imply.  It is deeply intertwined with many aspects of human existence, spirituality among them, and it is thus thoroughly unbiblical to condemn the love of pleasure.

Nothing about loving pleasure excludes loving God.  The notion that the two are irreconcilable or opposed is only a myth perpetuated by ascetic legalists either out of fear or out of stupidity, and the Bible rejects the idea as early as the first two chapters of Genesis.  A deity who creates humans with the capacity for experiencing psychological and sensual pleasures and calls his creation "very good" cannot be opposed to pleasure unless it is pursued in an illegitimate way.

Restorative Sociality

Not all people have equal gravitation to social interaction, and it is not logically impossible for some people to desire little to no social contact of any sort in the first place.  Nevertheless, sociality is, generally speaking, a fundamental part of human life, whether it is regarded as desirable or frustrating.  Indeed, the social aspects of human life are presented as divinely intended by Genesis 2 when God says it is not good for humans to be alone.

Far too often, the church speaks of relational fulfillment as if it must come from marriage, ignoring the fact that friendship is more socially and spiritually foundational than marriage could ever be.  Friendship is the most foundational way that human sociality is displayed.  It is a choice of two people to invest in each other and learn about the other despite having no initial obligation to do so, separating it from biological family, which cannot be chosen, and from transactional relationships, which may rest on promises made beforehand.

Friendships, therefore, are the highest manifestation of the social nature God imbued within humanity (an affectionate marriage is just a friendship with formal commitment and romantic or sexual components, but not all friendships are marriages).  Through friendships, the wounds of abusive or otherwise negative relationships can find their antidote.  Healthy relationships--relationships that are mutually enriching and also mutually wanted--are sometimes the only way to effectively heal from the ravages of damaging relationships.

If God intended for humans to be social beings, it should not be surprising that restorative sociality can help one minimize or forget the pain of relationships that culminated in abandonment, abuse, or apathy.  That is not to say that one cannot overcome the demons of destructive relationships on one's own; some individuals are entirely capable of healing without the presence of others.  Rather, the healing process is likely to be far easier in the context of relationships that bring rejuvenation and empowerment with them.

The Jews Who Brought Jesus To The Romans

When discussing the moral legitimacy of capital punishment, far too many people treat execution as if the method is a less relevant part of the issue than the crime that it would be assigned to, when it is actually just as important as identifying which crimes merit execution in many cases--and even more important in others.  Even if someone has committed multiple capital crimes in particularly vicious ways, to use an illicit method is inherently unjust, regardless of the severity of the offense being punished.  The fixed boundaries of Biblical justice make it clear which methods are illicit within the Christian worldview.

Despite the utter unbiblicality of an execution process like Roman crucifixion, some will not only trivialize the fact that certain Jews conspired to specifically give Jesus to the Romans--realizing that crucifixion was the standard Roman method of capital punishment for non-citizens and that crucifixion completely contradicts Mosaic Law--but also pretend like Jewish law itself allowed for some form of crucifixion.  Many tenets of Mosaic Law were violated by the Jews who tried Jesus, from the condemnation of perjury to the demand for consistent witnesses, but one of the gravest violations was the fact that the Jews in question brought Jesus to the Romans in hopes that they might crucify him.

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 and 25:1-3 condemn anything that comes near Roman crucifixion on their own, with the former passage permitting only the temporary hanging of a corpse of an executed criminal and the latter both separating capital and other forms of corporal punishment and classifying more than a mere 40 lashes as unjust.  Beyond this, the fact that the only methods of execution specifically assigned in Mosaic Law stop far short of even a less degrading and prolonged form of crucifixion--stoning and burning being two examples--means that there is absolutely no way for a Biblically righteous person to ever tolerate or endorse such an execution method.

Due to even any single one of these aspects of Mosaic Law, the demand for capital punishment in Biblical law does not mean that the Jews were permitted to flay or crucify people who committed one of the very specific acts that qualifies for capital punishment in the Torah.  On the contrary, to kill anyone at all in such a manner would almost always make the executioner(s) worse than the criminal in question (unless he or she had literally tortured someone in the same ways, in which case both would be deplorable).  To even hand someone over to be crucified, regardless of their guilt or innocence of the charges against them, would be a total injustice.

The ultimate innocence of Jesus is almost always emphasized to the point of completely ignoring that Rome's form of crucifixion is one of the most unjust tortures the historical record speaks of humans inflicting on each other.  Gassing humans in showers, shooting students at a school, and killing others via suicide bombings are wholly incomparable to Roman crucifixion in terms of suffering, and yet Christians are often far more likely to exaggerate the wickedness of far less sadistic and unjust forms of killing than they are to even imply that Roman crucifixion was evil in every case, not only in the case of Jesus' execution!

This mindset directly affects how many Christians approach the gospel narratives, including the particular reasons they will say the Jews and Romans involved in Jesus' death were monstrous.  There is far more to the matter than the divine nature of Christ and his innocence.  The specific Pharisees who were content with having Jesus crucified not only conspired against their own Messiah, but they also completely violated the most important aspects of government-imposed justice revealed by Yahweh.

The Madness Of Collectivism

Collectivism may not refer to a denial that broad social categories do not eliminate individuality, but it does refer to an ideology that, in the name of the collective group, sacrifices individuality at the altar of conformance with non-obligatory trends or traditions.  If individualism is logically correct, then it would not even matter if collectivism has any alleged benefits; collectivism would be irrational and therefore indefensible simply because it is false.

Now, individualism is true; not only is individuality of some form present in all people, but the emphasis on tradition and generalities in collectivism is objectively mistaken.  Moreover, any attempt to argue that collectivism is the best foundation for any value humans might have is also mistaken: if a human has value because they are human, it does not matter if they belong to any civilization or other group of people.  The only relevant factor is that they fall into the category of human.

Since a collectivist strives for group objectives and is at most minimally interested in people as individuals, he or she would be even more prone to practice utilitarianism or to tolerate (if not promote) stereotypes than the average person.  Since any society is built of individual people, such ideas are not only irrational, but they are also counterproductive to the genuine flourishing of a culture.  The members of a society are not free to enjoy the most authentic lives they can when they are shackled by utilitarian processes, social constructs, and arbitrary norms.

A genuine collectivist, in all likelihood, has at least one of two motives: the desire to perpetuate familiar social phenomena or the desire to maintain a stable society.  However, familiarity with a corrupt or gratuitous societal framework only means one is familiar with that which is immoral or unneeded.  It has no value on its own, and thus familiarity is only significant when the object of familiarity is the truth.  Similarly, stability can have no significance unless it is stability in the truth.

The madness of collectivism and its followers is the kind that stands behind arbitrary social hierarchies, societal norms, and family traditions despite the fact that these things have no legitimate authority.  At the heart of collectivism is the insistence that people should submit to cultural or familial norms for the sake of the majority's preferences, as if familiar social structures are more important than reason and morality, neither of which calls for any concern for collectivist goals.

Corporate Personhood

Unless a company takes the form of a sole proprietorship, it is impossible for a company to actually consist of a single person, and yet American law treats corporations as if they are, for legal purposes, individuals.  A business can be sued like a person, even if the company contains thousands of workers.  A business can also enjoy some of the legal rights bestowed upon human despite the fact that firms are often comprised of far more than a single person.

The legal treatment of a business as if it is an individual can be referred to as corporate personhood, the concept of which calls for clarification regarding what a company is in the first place.  A company is not a building, nor it its CEO or other executives alone.  A business is the collection of all employees and executives who have come together for the purpose of selling a product or service.  Without the human component, a building is nothing but a physical structure.

It follows that if people have moral obligations, so do businesses.  That a corporation is not a "natural person" does not mean that corporations have no obligations beyond enriching stockholders.  There is far more to business ethics than pleasing the public enough to positively affect profits and stock values!  A corporation may not be an individual in any sense other than a non-literal legal one, but it is nevertheless a group of people.

While not every aspect of corporate life is brimming with ethical ramifications, business is far from an amoral pursuit.  Just as human life is replete with moral considerations, corporate life is full of moral considerations that do not vanish when someone pretends like a business is separate from the people who sell goods or services or those who preside over the employees in question.  Corporate personhood does distinguish between the constructed "person" of a firm and the workers therein, yet this legal doctrine does not determine the actual nature of a business.

Abuses Of Technology

A deity who permits scientific laws that themselves allow for electrical and mechanical technology and never condemns such a use of science can hardly be said to oppose technology.  In the absence of any divine condemnation, the followers of that deity would have nothing to stand on if they opposed technology on its own.  Such is the case when certain Christians speak without distinguishing between technology and abuses of technology.

An object that requires human activity in order to be misused cannot be legitimately blamed for whatever immoral behaviors people decide to use them for, no matter the scope or depravity.  It likewise does not matter how personally terrifying technology can be.  In every single case, technology is never evil; it is only how technology is used that can be immoral by Biblical standards.

That nuclear bombs can be used for selfish or petty reasons does not mean that no person or country should have nuclear bombs.  That online sexual videos can feature men or women who have been victimized by human trafficking does not mean that sexual videos are themselves the problem.  In the same way, that cars can pollute the environment does not mean that the use of cars should be abandoned or prohibited.

Weapons, entertainment, erotic media--all of these things have been transformed by the development of contemporary technology.  They can certainly be used for sinful purposes, but to blame video games for violent acts or to blame military technology for unjust killings is asinine.  Technology is not responsible for human actions.  The truth should be obvious: humans are responsible for their own behaviors.

To condemn technology because of human misdeeds is equivalent to condemning a stone because someone threw it at someone's window.  Few would condemn the stone, yet many condemn electronics, weapons, and entertainment for things for which they are not to blame.  For those who prefer fiction to reason, though, a bias against technology might be so familiar that to forsake it is to forsake the comfort of stupidity.