Switching To A Kosher Diet

For someone adjusted to a lifetime of eating foods like pork, crab, crawfish, or the meat of other non-kosher animals, giving up certain habits might be challenging.  As much as some Christians might want to be perceived as righteous or at least feel like they are trying to strive for the perfection within everyone's grasp, almost none of them would ever go beyond making assumptions about the dietary commands of the Bible.  Do they know which foods are prohibited?  Probably not.  Do they remember which verses in the New Testament supposedly override them?  Again, this is not likely.  Other than the general stupidity of assumptions and the relative ease of philosophical laziness, there is also in all likelihood a lack of desire to to ever change something like diet even if they should.

No, Matthew 15 and Acts 11 in no way contradict the idea that the dietary restrictions are universal obligations, the former pointing out the legalistic fallacy of treating washing hands before meals as morally right and the latter focusing on how Gentiles are not excluded from God's salvation.  Plenty of Christians are not rationalists and will believe in assumptions or contradictions, though.  A significant motivation behind assumptions in this case sometimes appears to be the real but potentially assumed difficulty of making permanent diet alterations even late in life.  This is not logically impossible, as it does not follow from eating one thing for one's entire life that one cannot transition to a somewhat more limited diet.

It is not as if all sorts of popular meats and other foods are not still fully permitted under Mosaic Law anyway.  Evangelicals love to talk about making sacrifices for God or prioritizing truth (which is grounded in reason) and righteousness, and still they would almost never even entertain the logical possibility of the dietary laws still being binding, even when they do not even know where any relevant passages are or have actual familiarity with them free of assumptions.  The allure of conformity to the traditions they are comfortable with and the seeming difficulties of life changes, some of these perceptions exaggerated by a yielding subjective feelings, would deter them.

They have not focused on the fact that difficulty is not impossibility and that moral obligation does not depend on willingness or the ease of fulfilling them.  If they truly cared about reason, truth, God, and morality as they selectively claim, evangelicals would be eager to make whatever changes in their lives necessary to submit to these things, even something more practical or day-to-day as the consumption of food.  It is not as if no meat or general food is permitted except for a single representative from a single category.

It is possible for a perfectly rationalistic person to mean to visit the dietary passages much later than they analyze the far more important moral issues, like murder, kidnapping, classism, and so on, but no rationalist would ever read Matthew 15 and think Jesus is saying the dietary laws are repealed, or read Acts 11 and think Peter's vision is about food and not accepting Gentiles as fellow humans alongside the Jews.  Such a person, if they are aware of the immense evidence that Christianity is true, might realize that they need to alter their diet in order to live according to probabilistic likelihoods, and they could also realize this change is absolutely doable.

Sex During Menstruation

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Ezekiel 33:12-16

A blameless person who unrepentantly does something immoral has erred and not relented by turning from their error; the scope and depth of their past righteousness by logical necessity could not remove the fact that they have done what they should not.  Unless they come back to reason and justice, they have diluted their identity and betrayed reality without even trying to realign with the truth.  Someone could still be partly or even mostly rational and righteous.  This would not exempt them from the rest of their deeds.  Ultimately, not even returning to total perfection from the time of the sin onward would lift the guilt.

This is true with or without Christianity being true as well, and even if morality of any kind did not exist, reason would require that all of this would be correct if any moral obligations had been in existence.  For the most part, this conclusion is accepted as standard in evangelical circles, although it is because of tradition and blind assumptions that leads them to this rather than reason alone or reason and the Bible.  Verses like Ezekiel 33:12-16 do happen to very directly touch upon this, not that they are popular.  This passage states that the truly righteous can allow themselves to fall and will still in some way be judged as sinful (it is not clarified fully if they would lose their status before God and be cast into Gehenna unless they repented beforehand).

The former righteousness of someone who sins without repentance counts for nothing, Ezekiel 33:12 says.  Since the soul that sins deserves death (Ezekiel 18:4), whether the first death or the second (Matthew 10:28 addresses how both are death and not endless torture), the sinner will or should die despite being less guilty than a lifelong fool who has never once repented or devoted themself to what is just (again, Ezekiel 33:12).  Likewise, the sinner who repents will not have his or her past errors will not receive justice, but mercy (33:14-16).

In verse 14 and onward, God even says that someone he specifically promised would die would be spared if they quite literally turned from sin to justice.  They will not have their previous blunders counted against them if only they will not cling to them, in spite of how severe they were.  This promise of a deserved death is contingent upon how people choose to believe and behave.  Neither the uprightness of the once righteous or the depravity of the once wicked will be what determines their immediate standing with God in a sense.

The way that this relates to how one's righteous acts could never alter the past is that it is mercy to be offered salvation in the first place.  Restoring oneself to rationality and righteousness does not save one apart from this divine forgiveness.  Mercy and grace from God and commitment on the part of the redeemed individual are what contribute to salvation (Ephesians 2:8-10), each coming from different sources.  Otherwise, all the wicked would be burned into nonexistence of the mind (2 Peter 2:6) without the opportunity for redemption.  Repentance is a necessary component of commitment to Yahweh and Christ for any sinner and it is this that elevates them back to hope of perfection.

The Ultimate Irrationality

Knowledge is impossible unless one avoids assumptions, but a person could avoid assumptions when it comes to the core nature of logical axioms while still believing in other irrational things, whether they are irrational in the sense of demonstrably false (like the idea that it is impossible for other minds to exist) or simply unverifiable given human limitations (like the idea that God loves all people).  I had actually done this prior to becoming a rationalist at the very beginning of 2015.  All one has to do to know logical axioms, such as that something that follows from another thing must be true, is try.  While it is not a logical axiom, the fact that one exists as a perceiving (conscious) being is also self-evident.  One could ignore this, yet anyone willing to discover it could even if they still actively held to all sorts of false or unprovable ideas about consciousness beyond this.

Someone could believe in other errors or assumptions while still knowing that logical axioms are inherently true and that their own mind exists, that they are thus absolutely certain, and that no matter what else is true, it cannot contradict axioms.  They could wrongly believe in the knowability of scientific laws beyond mere perceptions and still know that logical axioms are true separately, intrinsically, and universally.  They could mistake evidence for the presence of other minds or for Yahweh being the same as the logically necessary uncaused cause for proof, and still they would know that axioms are epistemologically self-evident because they are true in themselves if only they at least were willing to not make assumptions about the very foundations of all things--that which is true independent of all else and yet that everything else depends on.

There is no ultimate irrationality other than denying logical axioms.  It is not thinking Earth is flat, or that something one is looking at does not exist (not that one could know these things either way), that God does not exist (and an uncaused cause is provable), or that emotion is relevant to whether morality exists, to give just some examples, that is the supreme type of irrationality.  No, this could only be the denial of the specific truths that could not be false without still already being true.  That something logically following from another thing is true, that something is true about reality, that something is either true or false, and a small handful of other truths, like what might be termed the law of identity, cannot be or have been any other way--not because of God, nature, or human beliefs or endeavors.

Whoever denies logical axioms is an irrationalist.  Whoever recognizes logical axioms at least on a basic level, even if they believe other things that contradict what follows from them or make assumptions elsewhere, has to a partial extent avoided assumptions.  As long as they truly do see that logical axioms cannot be anything but inherently true, they have genuine knowledge of at least this most important of subjects.  One must flee from assumptions to have knowledge, and no one can have knowledge apart from knowing the axioms that have self-evidence and intrinsic veracity.  Partial avoidance of assumptions is possible.  It is just not enough to truly know or honor logical axioms beyond the most cursory acknowledgement.

The Desire For Conflict

Irrationality makes conflict necessary in order to live for the truth, and a lack of error (strictly logical or moral, which is also governed by logical truths) makes it irrational to act as if there is something to despise or confront when there is not.  Conflict is needed in order to defend or affirm the truth to those who disregard it, yes, and some people of varying worldviews, not all of them rationalists, might find it alluring to have intense exchanges with others.  Non-rationalists or people who know reason and yet deviate from it in a given case are the very reason why we need to confront anyone in the first place, and yet conflict can be a highly controversial or painful thing even when it is legitimate.

To not shirk from conflict and even to embrace or enjoy conflict cannot be problematic as long as one is fully rational and righteous through it all, making no assumptions, denying no truths, not sinking into emotionalism, and never seeking out a chance for psychological brutality where there is no need for conflict.  Failure to abide by these basic but significant restrictions is what makes some people conflate conflict for arrogance and confrontation with intensity disproportionate to the nature of the issue in question.  Conflict itself is not brutality, not that brutality is automatically emotionalistic or unjust.  Stupidity makes everything from mild correction to fierce verbal condemnation, the latter being more brutal, valid whenever irrationalism is adhered to.

A rationalist could even come to grow deep, penetrating, constant pleasure from the thought or experience of showing rational harshness towards lesser people, people who flee from or neglect the necessary truths of reason and entire issues like epistemology, God's nature, and morality that hinge on them.  Some might not even have to struggle with fighting the urge to be in conflict just to feel this kind of empowerment and enjoyment, but it would still have to be the case that anyone who did fight this never stir up or desire conflict just to obtain more pleasure.  To wish for someone to hold to a philosophical error or to perform a misdeed for the sake of rightly opposing them is itself irrational.

The desire for conflict is not something everyone can relate to, and for those who do, it is not necessarily experienced with the same motivations or ferocity from one person to another.  In all cases, it must still not be allowed to drive a person to hope for others to err or to be confrontational where there is no evidence of anything meriting this interaction.  Conflict can be rational, morally obligatory, and even personally pragmatic (though this never could justify engaging in it for sole reasons of subjective preference); it is nothing to reject in itself.  The absence of conflict can also be rational, obligatory, and pragmatic, and it is also nothing to reject simply because it is the absence of conflict.  Personality and emotion do not change these truths in either direction.

Living With Poverty

Being born into poverty does not logically necessitate that one will remain in it for life, but the full extent of how difficult it could be to climb out of poverty is not always recognized.  Life circumstances are already stacked against someone in this situation, and not only is a poor person just trying to survive among the easiest targets for underpayment and overworking (they might be so desperate as to overlook or tolerate them just to get by), but they would also have to face potentially devastating mental health ramifications of their struggles and be at the mercy of a sometimes apathetic or cruel culture.

Almost everything in life poses difficulty for the poor.  For the extremely poor who have no family members not beside them in this trial, it can seem even more hopeless.  The ways poverty can entrap people are many.  For instance, someone would need a car for many jobs (many jobs can be done remotely, but the bubs postings might be misleading or the employers might be pressuring an asinine "return to the office").  A car that runs safely and that probably has a lot of use left can be expensive even aside from rampant inflation.  Beyond simply purchasing a car, someone needs gas, sporadic maintenance or repairs if they can afford them, and insurance to spare them from perhaps having to pay much greater amounts later on.

Food needs to be regularly consumed, safe water needs to be ingested, and then there is the increasing cost of living when it comes to renting a place to live.  Entire times of year could be difficult to weather for those without economic resources to spare; winters, for instance, can be expensive to survive because warmer clothing (atypical clothing in regions warm for most of the year) needs to be bought and and because electrical heating rises in price due to increased usage and demand.  Because smaller emergencies or other sudden problems require larger proportions of a person's regular income, what could be a trivial expense for some people is a major setback for others, taking away money that could have gone towards long-term, more expensive needs that in some instances avert the lesser problem (for example, pressing things such as buying new clothes required for a job, the source of money, might mean a person has to postpone a dental or car repair.

Whatever money is put towards resolving a given health, car, or other issue often means something else must be given up or delayed.  Just abstaining from unnecessary expenses is not enough to stabilize the financial standing of someone like this, as they literally could go without food or be without functioning personal transportation if they were to spend money on a non-necessity.  They are already having to spend too much of what they have or perhaps more.  Overdraft fees, workplace exploitation, and the recurring need for gas, water, food, shelter, and clothing (at least in the sense of fitting in with general society) could hold a person in poverty no matter what they do short of having multiple jobs, which then sacrifices their time and energy.

It is the case that once a person has some amount of secure wealth that they do not need to tap into, it becomes far easier to continue gaining more wealth, be it in the form of money or miscellaneous possessions.  It is also true that a great deal of luck could be involved in whether that initial wealth that facilitates the expansion of wealth is ever achieved.  Chance, oppression of others by theft (by "wage theft" or by "ordinary" theft), and hard work are all possible means of obtaining money, but hard work is the most unlikely of them all to succeed in a culture where the wealthy are given opportunities they do not even need and those who would benefit the most from outside support might be told to just work harder.

Game Review--The House Of The Dead: Remake (Switch)

"You must stop Curien or else something terrible will happen."

--Sophie Richards, The House of the Dead: Remake

Nostalgia and the revival of dormant franchises on new platforms can still merit their own kind of celebration, but there is nothing to celebrate about an extreme paucity of content.  An incredibly limited length does the remake of The House of the Dead no favors.  Neither does the lack of emphasis on horror as opposed to very over-the-top action with light horror trappings.  Now, the arcade experience is well replicated on the Switch, so the game is not without some successes.  The game in its original form was also instrumental in catapulting the quicker, more aggressive zombies many are now familiar with to the forefront of popular culture, and the remake is a chance to revisit an impactful part of art, despite its flaws.  For what it is, The House of the Dead: Remake remains a well-structured enhancement of a game with very particular flaws.

Production Values

No, the graphics are not terrible, however much more pixelated the enemies might appear in my still screenshots than in the frantic onscreen movements of the game; no, they are also absolutely not the best I have ever seen on the Switch.  First-party games are usually the most aesthetically well-constructed titles on the platform, and House of the Dead is no exception to this norm.  While this might reflect the way the original was designed, the voice acting is distinctively worse.  There is scarcely any dialogue across the four levels of the game.  Both the voice acting that is present and the lines themselves, unfortunately, make the dialogue original Resident Evil 4 seem sophisticated--a terrifying thing!  In part because of this, everything besides the arcade-style gameplay has the depth of a miniscule puddle, but the less excellent or deep works of art can still by contrast provoke contemplation of artistic excellence.

Gameplay

In its four levels, which together only provide around an hour of content aside from replays, the remake of House of the Dead takes the player on an on-rails trek through the mansion and laboratories of the deranged Dr. Curien.  Zombies (or at least humans that resemble the common zombie aesthetic, even if they are not actual reanimated corpses) roam the building and the land around it, sometimes even brandishing axes or barrels they hurl if not stopped first.  This sets them apart from the culturally predominant version of a zombie.  You have to kill a member of each enemy type before it becomes viewable in the Gallery, where you can also see other things like the achievements earned.  For instance, one is earned by killing 666 enemies.

Encouraging replays are the alternate paths, scientists that can be saved, and a handful of secret weapons to be unlocked.  Shooting scientists kills them and requires a restart of that level to save everyone.  With such a shooting-heavy game adapted from light-gun arcade origins, having gyroscopic, touch screen, and more conventional control options is a significant strength of this remake.  With the touch screen controls, you can tap the touch screen with one finger to fire and two to reload, while the gyroscope option lets you aim by tilting the Joy-Cons so that the cursor migrates around the screen.  Perhaps someone would want to replay the game simply to experiment with the controls--though trying Horde Mode alongside the standard mode extends the replayability as well.  Here, many more enemies can be onscreen at once.  Compare the screenshots below to see how different this makes the same parts of the game in Original and Horde Mode:

Story

Dr. Curien has allegedly been experimenting on the human genome in his mansion, and upon investigating up close, Thomas Rogan finds his romantic partner endangered and a host of scientists trying to survive attacks from biologically altered humans and animals.  

Intellectual Content

There are mild options for exploration that have to be brought about by timely player input, something that might take multiple playthroughs to fully experience, but other than this, there is little to stimulate the player besides shooting and reloading quickly enough to outlast attackers.  This is not an abysmal thing on its own.  Though artistic quality and relaxing enjoyment of art are themselves philosophical matters, as all things are, art can be excellent despite not having a gravitation specifically towards abstract necessary truths and metaphysical/epistemological issues.  The remake just lacks philosophical depth, lacks any explicit horror beyond the basic visual enemy design and environmental settings, and also has a very small number of levels.  All of this combined is what really handicaps the game.

Conclusion

By design, The House of the Dead: Remake is not brimming with anything like metaphysical exploration or superb characterization.  It does offer an updated gameplay experience, for all its thematic limitations and extreme brevity compared to many games, of an arcade release that wound up helping shift the broad direction of zombie horror.  On the Switch, the control options can even capture elements of the arcade version's setup rather well, as with the gyroscope aiming.  Again, for what it is, this remake that resurrects the first entry of the franchise is executed well as a whole.  The type of horror it offers is just by default not as developed as that of various later games that allow for thorough stories, among other things.  It is also true that not every game in this general genre needs to be The Last of Us.  This can be alright as long as other qualities are executed competently.

Content:

 1.  Violence:  Very exaggerated spurts of blood of various colors come out when creatures are shot or killed.

Justice For Male And Female Servants

Only a few servants of Job's escape the destruction that befalls his flocks and children to tell him what has happened to various animals, family members, and other servants.  A significant number of his servants are among the blessings God allows Satan to take from him (Job 1:15-17); the remaining male and female servants are estranged from him (19:15-16).  As his "friends" assume that he must have done something evil (even if an idea is true, assumptions are always epistemologically invalid), or else God would not have caused or allowed any of this, Job defends himself by listing miscellaneous sins he has not committed or has taken great care to avoid.  While a figure in a narrative saying something is good or evil does not mean that the notion in question is morally correct by Biblical standards, as something in the text must specify that God approves of or condemns something to establish this, what Job says about his treatment of his servants is in perfect alignment with the plain moral teachings of Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy in particular.

Job 31:13-15--"'If I have denied justice to any of my servants, whether male or female, when they had a grievance against me, what will I do when God confronts me?  What will I answer when called to account?  Did not he who made me in the womb make them?  Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?"

From statements like this, it is impossible to in any way derive knowledge of what constitutes Biblically just treatment of servants or anyone else, except that of course the same treatment is just for men and women in equivalent situations, as anything else is inconsistent with Genesis 1:26-27 and 5:1-2, and more importantly, with reason.  This much is required by logic since the same actions committed by or against men and women could only be equally good or evil; women and men are both people, neither having more value or rights than the other if such a thing as moral value and rights exists, contrary to various misandrist and misogynistic worldviews.  Because these are logically necessary truths, although there is no logical necessity in the actual existence of good and evil, the Bible would have to be consistent with them for its moral philosophy to even be logically possible.  Clarifying more of the particulars of how servants should and should not be treated, the following passages also specifically mention male and female servants, and they are not all of the verses in Mosaic Law on the ethics of behavior towards servants:

Exodus 20:8-10--"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.  Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God.  On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns."

Exodus 21:20--"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,"

Exodus 21:26-27--"An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye.  And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth."

Deuteronomy 15:12-13--"If any of your people--Hebrew men or women--sell themselves to you and serve you six years, you must let them go free.  And when you send them away, do not send them away empty-handed."

Since some idiots think that because the Bible speaks (due to the context of getting a wife) of a male slave going free in Exodus 21:2, a female slave would not also go free after six years of service, Deuteronomy 15:12 is a blatant reminder in this very specific case that never are there prescribed gender-specific obligations (Genesis 1:26-27) that are not about literal anatomy (such as Leviticus 19:27's condemnation, in context pertaining to pagan expression, of cutting beards), as opposed to psychological stereotypes.  Just because a man was specifically in view in Exodus 21:2--in this instance given the subsequent verses, it is not that a male word is used for someone already directly or by extension confirmed to be of either gender as with older translations of Exodus 21:26-27, Leviticus 13:29-39, Deuteronomy 17:2-7, and so on--does not mean a woman does not have the same right, and vice versa as applicable!  This does not follow logically.  For yet another passage affirming utter gender equality in the release of servants despite the male wording of Exodus 21:2, see Jeremiah 34:8-17, where God promises to destroy people who refused to fully release male and female servants of their own countrypeople after six years of labor.

As for the book of Job, what it says about slaves is consistent with all of this.  Whether because of sheer rationality, precise moral revelation from Yahweh, or both, Job does not pretend like his servants are only useful instruments to hurt or discard as he pleases, as opposed to full persons, nor does he pretend that men and women are not equal.  It would be extremely unjust even according to the very explicit wording of verses from Exodus to, for instance, think that the Sabbath rest is only for male servants or that only female servants deserve protection from physical abuse, and Job does not think such things.  He recognizes that all of his servants, both men and women, are not subhuman because of their social status or gender and that the same God brought them into being.  In Job 31:13-15, as shown, he fully and rightfully expects to be confronted by God if he was to disregard his slaves or for mistreating ether men or women.

Of course, it would also be inconsistent for Biblical ethics to hold that treatment of male and female slaves must be equal, but not for men and women who become free or who never were slaves.  If killing a slave of either gender by abusive corporal punishment as is emphasized by the direct wording of Exodus 21:20, which mentions male and female slaves, then of course the commands of Exodus 21:12-14 would apply no matter the gender of the perpetrator or victim of general murder.  This is in spite of the default male wording of Exodus 21:12-14, though the Hebrew and English words "man", "he", and so on can refer to both male and female people.  For this flexibility of male nouns and pronouns alone, a Bible verse mentioning men is applicable to both genders unless something in it or its context specifies otherwise, and vice versa whenever women and men can commit the same actions that are good or evil in themselves, not because of someone's genitalia.  Logical equivalence of actions by or against men and women would necessarily dictate that this is what would be true of any text's moral system unless the contrary is actually stated, in which case the proposed moral framework would contradict logical necessity and thus be incapable of being true.

Now, the gender equality of Genesis 1:26-27 and 5:1-2 also already refutes misogynistic or misandrist interpretations of passages like Exodus 21:12-19 due to default male language, and this is also aside from how the original manuscripts of the Torah sometimes explicitly mention men and women right before or after using male words in summary (Exodus 21:20 tends to do this in older English translations as well, along with many other verses, most of which deal with direct moral commands from God or other matters of moral significance rather than merely descriptive narrative accounts [1]).  People who think that retreating behind the sometimes specific male or female language in given parts of Mosaic Law, unless the context requires that a moral doctrine literally just apply to men or to women for anatomical reasons, are fools.  See the example of such a thing concerning the circumcision prescription of Leviticus 12:1-3 for males, as well as how 12:6-8 says that a woman who gave birth was the one to make a purification offering; her husband could go with her, but he did not give birth.  This does not mean, for instance, that Deuteronomy 25:11-12 would only apply specifically to women commiting sexual assault against men by grabbing their genitalia, as opposed to the other way around or to people of the same gender doing this to each other if those things were to happen.  The Bible plainly teaches inside and outside of Mosaic Law that men and women have the same rights and obligations except where their anatomy itself, not fallacious stereotypes about their gender, is in view.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful.

[1].  For numerous examples of this in the Torah, most often about the moral status/obligations that all people from all eras have, see Genesis 1:26-27 (KJV, NKJV), 5:1-2 (KJV, NKJV); Exodus 21:20-21 (KJV, NKJV), 26-27 (KJV, NKJV), 22:22-24 (NASB), 35:21-22 (KJV, NKJV); Leviticus 13:29-39 (KJV, NKJV), 25:44-46 (KJV); Numbers 5:5-7 (KJV, NKJV), 6:1-21 (KJV, NKJV); Deuteronomy 13:6-10 (KJV, NKJV), 15:12-18 (KJV, NKJV), 17:2-7 (KJV, NKJV), and 29:14-21 (KJV, NKJV).  For examples in other books of the Bible, see the likes of Job 31:13-15 (KJV), Isaiah 24:1-6 (KJV, NKJV), Jeremiah 34:8-17 (KJV, NKJV), Ezekiel 9:4-6 (KJV, NKJV), and 14:12-22 (KJV, NKJV, NIV), two of which were referenced in this post.

Enjoying Cosmic Horror

From The Call of Cthulhu to Lovecraft Country to The Sinking City to Revival, cosmic horror deals with concepts and creatures that are logically possible--no matter what many irrationalists pretend--but entail that the nature of reality is outright hostile to humans, and that these monstrous truths often lurk just outside the spectrum of human perception.  There can be religious cosmic horror and nonreligious cosmic horror (religion not being the same as theism, many works in the genre explicitly affirm a deity of some kind).  The focus could be placed on a universal scope or on an individual's personal reactions to the unknown or extraordinarily bleak plot developments.  It could overlap with more conventional horror norms, as long as it touches upon some foundational revelation or some incredible superhuman being free of certain metaphysical restrictions.

A work in this category could blend supernaturalism and biological horror, exploring anything from the isolation of the ocean to the vastness of outer space to the possibility of a terrible afterlife.  Moreso than many other genres and their subgenres, cosmic horror is very explicit in its philosophical themes, as misunderstood as those themes usually are (no, logical necessities cannot be false, so no eldritch being is beyond them even in fiction, and no, cosmic horror does not have to be morally nihilistic).  What would lead someone to enjoy it, though, to seek it out for the more intentionally existential terror that it can pose?

Horror can be intoxicating for its penetrating nature (for those who experience this) and for how it very explicitly explores metaphysical and epistemological issues that many are too shallow to ever focus on left to themselves.  Absolutely no one needs entertainment to prompt them to discover many logical truths or to contemplate serious concepts, but horror offers a much more direct sort of philosophical substance than, say, comedy or action when it is done well.  Cosmic horror does this even more than broader horror.  As a niche subgenre, the entire purpose behind most cosmic horror works, regardless of their medium, is to use the limitations of human experience that many people foolishly rely on for their worldview, ideas about deities or other beings that are ultimately logically possible but highly dangerous, and an atmosphere of both personal and cosmic dread to emphasize how small people are compared to deeper truths.

Fear is subjective.  What crushes one's person even in fiction might be intoxicating to someone else despite triggering genuine terror or concern in the latter.  If I was only a rationalist, but I had no access to the evidence for the specific type of theism that is likely true (Christianity, though theism is true irrespective of whether any established religious philosophy is true), cosmic horror could be much more terrifying.  As a rationalist and a Christian, I actually enjoy cosmic horror even more than I otherwise might because of intimate familiarity with what does or does not follow from something, what is and is not true by necessity, and the fallible but expansive evidence that the real uncaused cause and other aspects of reality are not in any way as objectively terror-worthy as those of many stories.

Enjoying cosmic horror might legitimately be heightened by being a Christian, contrary to what some might expect.  Cosmic horror can indeed be like a "drug" of sorts for philosophically oriented people, as shallow as many enjoyers of the subgenre are since all non-rationalists enormously lack rationality.  By addressing deeply metaphysical, existential, and epistemological issues that transcend cosmic horror itself, this kind of art has some of the greatest potential; the laws of logic, God (and even Lovecraft's cosmos has a deity with Azathoth), whether or not morality exists, and more are tied to the scope and type of the horror emphasized in the cosmic kind, and if any of these proposed metaphysics (the logically possible ones) are true, much of reality is very dim indeed.  That it is logically possible for many of these ideas to be false and that there is great evidence that they are false can amplify the pleasure of experiencing both general and niche horror, such as the kind Lovecraft is associated with.

Reasons To Avoid Marriage After Premarital Sex

Exodus 22:16-17 reveals several key things about the true Biblical stance on premarital sex.  For one thing, even relatively casual but consensual sex between unmarried and unengaged people is not automatically a sin if there is subsequent commitment, and certainly not one deserving of death like adultery (Deuteronomy 22:22) or bestiality (Exodus 22:19).  However, the text does say they should get married (casual sex with no commitment whatsoever is what is condemned), not that the most genuine form of marriage has anything to do with the social construct of a legal document or ceremony.  It adds that the father and by logical extension the mother, since both are equals before God on the basis of gender (Genesis 1:26-27, Deuteronomy 21:18-20, and so on), of the woman and also by extension the man can refuse the formal marriage.

The couple should get legally married or at least married in the non-legal sense of mutual commitment--unless there is reason to not move forward with deepening or continuing the relationship with or without parental approval.  Even in Exodus 22:16-17, marriage is already not a universally prescribed outcome.  If the parents object, the unmarried, unengaged man and woman do not have to be legally married according to these verses, and what would be the legitimate basis for them not doing this?  At the very least, the same things that would legitimize dissolving a decades-long marriage, such as abuse and neglect of any kind (Exodus 21:9-11) or sexual immorality (Matthew 19:9), which itself includes abuse such as rape (a capital sin according to Deuteronomy 22:25-27, so a marriage with rape should end one way or another), would justify the couple not remaining together.  

The parents could recognize these problems or at least the probability of them and insist that the marriage is a terrible idea.  Moreover, one would not have to be a parent to realize these problems are present.  There is no moral duty or personal benefit to racing towards a marriage that will only imprison one or bother parties whether or not sex has taken place.  Of course, sex should be reserved for genuine commitment, but that commitment is never presented in the Bible as something that supercedes all other concerns, like safety in marriage.

While still addressing how sex needs to be in the context of mutual commitment and how causal sex sometimes needs to lead to marriage, Exodus 22:16-17 on its own already gives possible reasons why a couple should not pursue lifelong commitment even if they has premarital sex.  The other criteria I mentioned would follow from this or be closely related.  No matter what expressions of commitment have already occurred, up to regular sex, no one is Biblically obligated to keep heading towards a future where they are abused or neglected in any way independent of whether they have an unfaithful partner.  

Sex before a legal marriage and the reaction to this sex would ideally push someone towards a relationship of lasting commitment unless there is reason to break that relationship apart, but just as a legal marriage can be rightly annulled (Exodus 21:9-11, Deuteronomy 24:1-4), this kind of extra-legal marriage or engagement before God can be legitimately dissolved before God in the same manner.  The Christian God is far more encouraging of divorce than many have been told without actually reading and analyzing the Bible free of assumptions.  A lifeless, abusive marriage, including on a psychological level, is a tragedy to the point that a victim is free to leave before any legal affirmation or any further damage, whichever is applicable, is done.

Abortion, Homosexuality, And Evangelicalism

The current strain of American evangelicalism is moreso about trying in vain to link Christianity to a distinctively conservative political philosophy that is treated in many ways as some self-evident, logically valid starting point.  It is not self-evident/intrinsically true like logical axioms, logically valid by extended deduction, or something that overlaps with Christianity except in a handful of occasional ways.  Yes, abortion (Exodus 21:12 would apply to intentionally killing an unborn child because they would still be human, with one exception [1]) and homosexual behaviors (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:26-27) are Biblically sinful, but they are not the only sins or the greatest.  Many vocal evangelicals pretend otherwise.  These two types of sin, maybe because they happen to be popular issues at the moment, are the ones that they sometimes focus on very disproportionately, exaggerating their depravity by ignoring them or contributing to things that are worse, like rape.

Some of them actually mistake political philosophy for the underpinning of moral philosophy and not the other way around.  That these topics are discussed frequently today in a political context means they might be approached as if politics is the foundation of all else, so of course these two sins are somewhat overemphasized by evangelicals in reaction to culture.  Conservative/Republican (of the contemporary kind, for conservatism shifts as traditions do) ideology is also inconsistent when it comes to the scope of its moral tenets: conservatism is supposed to entail that people stand against evil resolutely and without compromise in a shifting world, the supposed basis for rejecting anything associated with liberalism, yet conservatives often advance a very selective and utilitarian moral framework.  To allegedly keep laws against abortion, for instance, they will tolerate or even encourage a great deal of errors and immorality from their own candidates and policies.  A Democrat with some of the same seeming history and allegations as Trump would probably be regarded a terrible person by the same people who practically worshipped him.

Now, abortion is opposed by typical conservatives on the basis that it is (in most cases [1]) murder for the sake of convenience, the only difference being the size, location, and developmental stage of the victim and the means of death.  This much is valid.  If morality exists and all humans have rights, and if all killing is illicit outside of contexts like self-defense or justice, then yes, it is by necessity true that abortion at large (other than cases of genuine danger to the mother's life) is murder.  This does not mean that murder is the ultimate immorality or that opposing it even by supporting or tolerating other evil is valid.  Conservatives have become more open and unified about denying these truths.  Unsurprisingly, they do the same with their philosophical approach to homosexuality.  As long as a public figure denounces homosexual activities, even if they go beyond this by misrepresenting homosexuality (examples are given below), they will likely have conservative support at present time no matter what else they believe or do.

With opposition to homosexual expression, it is both, once again, an exaggeration of homosexuality as one of the worst Biblical sins of all or disgust with something that is different (homosexuality as opposed to heterosexuality) that many conservatives are driven by.  They often neglect how homosexuality, as in the state of experiencing homosexual feelings or desires, is not the same as sexual deeds between two persons of the same gender.  They might assume that homosexuality has some inherent link to pedophilic activity.  There is also the rather blatant, malicious hypocrisy of how conservatives might laugh at or endorsed homosexual rape in prisons, at least when it happens to men (with an added layer of extreme misandrist sexism).  Rape of men by women is usually ignored, scoffed at, or denied altogether as even a logical possibility when it very clearly is possible.  Rape of women by men is all but expected by many conservatives, who think of this as normal and blame the woman's clothing, her real or alleged beauty, or an egregious misrepresentation of male sexuality.  They are generally terrible at coming to truths about sexuality and assault as a whole.

Deceptive campaign promises, conspiracy theories, rampant greed, racism, and sexism, among other things, might not be as bad as rape, but these are things conservatives have not only trivialized, but have also become more eagerly associated with very overtly in more recent years for the supposed sake of a few specific issues.  2020 unleashed a tidal wave of unverifiable conspiracy theories about COVID-19's origins, the alleged deep state, Hunter Biden's laptop, the presidential election, and so on.  Next came assumptions about the vaccine, with some calling it the mark of the beast of all things.  I myself had to listen to supportive comments about these things from plenty of family members fairly often when I was around them during 2020 and 2021!  Failing to look past words and people to reason and concepts, conservatives tend to support political figures at almost any cost as long as there is superficial, verbal hostility towards abortion and homosexual behavior.  Utilitarianism, hypocrisy, emotionalism (they often believe things are immoral because of conscience), and general irrationalism are the heart of evangelical conservatism.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/07/abortion-in-cases-of-life-threatening.html

A Hypothetical Afterlife For Animals

As a human, it is usually easiest to contemplate the logical possibility of an afterlife (yes, with or without a new body, an afterlife does not contradict logical axioms) for oneself or other people, given the enormous differences between people and non-human animals.  Someone might occasionally wonder about whether a pet or some dying animal they observe will have any sort of continued conscious existence after biological death, but for the most part, contemplation about the afterlife seems to focus very predominantly on humans.  We are humans, after all.

Still, an ant, a deer, a cow, and an eagle could all have afterlives even if humans do not in the sense that this is logically possible.  Nothing about this contradicts reason.  Just became one creature has an afterlife does not mean another one has to, and humans might be the creature that does not receive one.  However, since people are more a direct part of human life than other beings, this kind of truth is less familiar to many--it is not that animals have an afterlife but not people, but that all of this is entirely possible.

The author of Ecclesiastes, although they later say that a state of unconsciousness and total mental inactivity awaits every person in Sheol before resurrection (Ecclesiastes 9:5-10), admits that they do not know if human spirits rise upward after death and animal spirits descend into the ground (3:21).  Death awaits both humans and other living things of this world (3:19-20), including the many beast that God created.  Physically, the bodies of both decay into the ground from which God fashioned the first humans in either case.  What verifiable advantage do people have over animals in this regard, the writer asks?

Yes, the Bible itself acknowledges many metaphysical or epistemological truths that one can know without any textual promoting, from pure reason.  It in no way refuses to grapple with existential matters far outside of what evangelicals and many secular people are comfortable with.  There could very well be animal life in the Biblical heaven, whether continuations of specific animals from Earth or separate/new creations, but if Christianity is not true in spite of the evidence, it is not as if an animal afterlife is impossible.  Lack of acknowledgement has nothing to do with the ultimate truth one way or another.

Keeping Workplace Dating Secret

Returning to work day after day to see a former dating partner and feeling distraught does not mean that workplace dating has to conclude this way. A couple could last or they could amicably break up with neither party feeling crushed by seeing them again on a regular basis.  Many objections to people dating someone from their workplace reduce down to this non sequitur and rejection of actual logical possibilities besides a disastrous dissolving of a romantic partnership, while others assume that people of different ranks on a company hierarchy will be the ones dating or that, if this is the case, one will exploit the other.

No one needs examples of actual couples that met or married because of work to realize the absolute certainty of workplace dating not having to be a destructive thing.  Still, for the sake of illogical ideas and traditions, people might be pressured by company leadership, coworkers, and friends to always divulge if they are dating someone from work, as objectively harmless and positive as it might be.  Unless one personally wants to or hopes to avoid the wrath of fools who might find out about the relationship later, there is no reason at all to share this development.

Not everyone, not even single people, is bound to develop romantic or sexual attraction to other people in the workplace.  If they do, it can always be handled without forming a relationship, without any pettiness or delusion, and without any impact at all on one's work.  For people who find a legitimately available and worthy partner--as in, a rationalist finding another willing rationalist--dating and even marrying them is not problematic.  Other people's fallacies and reactions might be problematic, but not the relationship itself.  As difficult as it can be to socialize outside of work as an adult, there is not always a better prospective way to meet someone anyway.

Someone who find themself in this situation can always opt to keep the relationship a secret, not damaging their work productivity or their partner's irrelevant reputation (reputation is not someone's actual character although it is invalidly treated as such by many), and not even upsetting the likely asinine, fragile operations of their workplace.  To keep this secret from management or HR is no offense against reason or the only moral system that is actually both logically possible and likely to be true (Biblical morality).

Work is already illicitly regarded by many as being what other aspects of life should revolve around rather than the other way around.  The common irrationalist of a manager or employer might try to use awareness of workplace dating as an excuse to penalize one or both parties, treat them with suspicion, or withhold promotions.  Unless a person wishes to publicize their relationship--which is not irrational on its own--just not ever telling anyone else at work or revealing indicators of an active dating partnership is always a legitimate course of action.

The Cosmic Horror Of Duma Key

"There were elder gods in those days; kings and queens they were."

--Duma Key, Stephen King

Starting as a story about disability, relationships, and therapy, Duma Key very gradually expands into cosmic horror territory.  When protagonist Edgar Freemantle moves to a Florida beach to recover after an almost lethal accident, he finds himself entangled in the activities of Perse.  Although Perse is much more mildly Lovecraftian than the likes of Mother from Revival, who is presented there as if she presides over an eternal afterlife of torture called the Null that every dead human goes to, and of Pennywise from It, she is one of many Lovecraftian creatures across King's extensive bibliography.  There are great similarities between her and these aforementioned beings, indeed.  Very specific similarities between her and one of Lovecraft's own literary creations are also present.

Like both Pennywise and Mother, Perse is described as being female.  Perse speaks to Edgar's daughter Ilse through drains, something Pennywise does in It.  Like Mother, Perse is connected with death, and like Mother, she can exert influence over people so that they carry out homicidal acts to further her goals.  In Revival, Mother does this to many of the people who were healed by the "secret electricity" Charles Jacobs tapped into, which seems to accelerate the arrival of the victims to the horrendous afterlife of the Null.  In Duma Key, Perse manipulates characters like Mary Ire to murder or attempt murder that serves her ends.  The ocean "goddess", as she is sometimes inaccurately referred to as (inaccurate if she is not a true uncaused cause), might indwell a small china doll that comes to outward life at night, but she is powerful.

Perse's affinity for seawater and her sometimes slumbering state mirror, maybe intentionally, those very qualities of Cthulhu, the ocean-bound eldritch being of H.P. Lovecraft that calls to people telepathically from the sunken city of R'lyeh.  Ironically, Ilse mentions how reading Lovecraft for a class might have made her more on edge about what turns out to be Perse's tampering with her life--and Lovecraft is also brought up by name in Revival.  The malevolent abomination of Duma Key is said to have likely been ancient at the time that the Jews were enslaved in Egypt, her name Perse actually being short for Persephone, the queen of the underworld in Greek mythology.  Whatever her origins, Edgar at one time has words come to mind without his input mentioning elder gods of the distant past.  However, the Persephone of Greek mythology does not have an ocean vessel with the souls of human victims as its crew as does the antagonist of the novel.

Crucially, the crew of collected human dead on her ship, also called the Persephone, itself entails a sliver of subtle optimism.  The interconnectivity of Stephen King stories, which would almost certainly contain Duma Key as well, means the Null of Revival cannot be where everyone goes after death forever.  If Perse dictates the afterlife of those she claims by drowning as shown, then their souls cannot go to this other realm.  Here is a further example of how the Null could not possibly be a universal, eternal afterlife destination of all people in Stephen King's multiverse, other examples including the ghosts in The Shining and the spirit of Pascal from Pet Sematary.  Yes, Revival is explicitly in the broader multiverse, as places like Castle Rock from other stories are mentioned, so any afterlife in other interwoven stories limits the possible scope of the Null.  Perse's connection to what is by all appearances an afterlife for certain characters, unless their reanimated forms are just puppets of Perse's own consciousness rather than vessels with their own captive souls, is of course relevant.

The tie between cosmic horror and the ocean is most iconic in Lovecraft's The Call of Cthulhu, but Duma Key combines this with an afterlife and the trappings of what is more commonly explored in pirate horror.  Unlike in Revival, though its alleged afterlife is at a minimum not for everyone, there is an unspecified but perhaps theistic force aiding the protagonists as they seal away Perse, despite their inability to guarantee that she will not return to power yet again; she had already been put to sleep before the present-day events of the story.  As unusual as a benevolent superhuman presence is in cosmic horror storytelling, this only reinforces that things are not as bleak as the finale of Revival would make them seem in isolation.

The Torah On Treatment Of Wartime Male Enemies

Men and women are individuals that differ by nature only in anatomy and physiology.  Psychological traits do not logically follow from having a penis or a vagina or any of the secondary physical sex characteristics, and one man's or woman's nonphysical traits will not necessarily reflect those of another.  In accordance with these logical truths, which already render all gender stereotypes false and thus the ideological basis for gender-specific obligations that have nothing to do with genitalia, the Bible never actually prescribes gender roles even if it occasionally appears to (compare Ephesians 5:21 with 5:22-28).  In contrast with the vast majority of Mosaic Law where it is clear from other passages (like Genesis 1:26-27 and Numbers 5:1-7), immediate context, or logical extension/equivalence that moral obligations are shared by both genders [1] (such as Exodus 20:13, 35:2, Leviticus 11:1-7, 20:27, Deuteronomy 18:9-11, or 22:5), other than the likes of men having to be circumcised (Leviticus 12:1-3), the warfare commands of Deuteronomy 20:10-15 regarding how to deal with people in a nearby city when war breaks out might seem sexist at first.

The pagan residents of the Promised Land were to all be killed (Deuteronomy 20:16-18, see also 7:1-6 and 9:1-6), so these statements did not apply to them.  Otherwise, when dealing with nearby enemies, God says in Deuteronomy 20 that attempts to avert even justified bloodshed must be made, and if the inhabitants of the enemy city yield before battle breaks out, all the people are to become laborers.  If they refuse, a siege is to be conducted, and after victory, the men are to be killed and the women and children taken captive.  There are strictly logical reasons why if the Bible is true, the command to kill the men could only apply in certain cultural contexts on the enemy side, since all gender stereotypes are false by logical necessity and thus there is no such thing as gender proclivities towards specific occupations like that of a soldier, only individual talent/preference or societal conditioning.  If the Bible is true, it would have to be consistent with these logical facts.  Also, there are textual evidences, both in this very chapter of Deuteronomy as well as other parts of the Bible, that contradict what might seem to be taught about male lives being disposable in warfare (as opposed to outside of warfare where the Torah is more obviously egalitarian).

For instance, if the enemy people give in upon the offer of peace, all the inhabitants are to become laborers no matter their gender; this is what the female and child captives could be used for in the case of a siege victory unless a woman married an Israelite man (Deuteronomy 21:10-14).  Deuteronomy 20 really contains one of the passages that, if it did teach what complementarians or ideological outsiders who think the Bible is complementarian assume (they assume, and they are also wrong in their conclusion, so there are multiple errors), would blatantly be sexist against men.  Of course, that if this is sexist it would be so against men (as with Deuteronomy 21:18-21 and 22:25-27; see [1]) is almost always neglected or denied in my experience, in accordance with political/theological liberals trying to demonize the Bible teaching men are closer to God, either to make its teachings seem erroneous or to argue for Yahweh initially giving intentionally subpar laws in order to gradually improve them--and in accordance with political/theological conservatives thinking that gender roles are rational, righteous, and Biblical.  There is only one way the teachings of Deuteronomy 20:10-15 are consistent with the logical necessities already described and with the rest of the Bible's clear moral doctrines of gender egalitarianism.

Yes, if morality exists, its obligations are the same for men and women (Numbers 5:1-7) unless they pertain to actual anatomy, like Biblical circumcision, and this is true whether or not Judeo-Christianity is.  If male soldiers were the fighting force of the pagan societies around Israel, then in the absence of peace, they were to be killed not just because they are men, but because they are the soldiers opposing those of God.  If Christianity is true, this has to be the case since the aforementioned logical necessity is true independent of it.  This would be about addressing how to conquer a city that does not choose peace if it has a particular social structure rather than prescribing that only men can be soldiers or that they must be--which is never taught by the Bible (see also Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32) and is horribly sexist against men as well as women, forcing them into the danger of battle simply because of their genitalia.  Likewise, it does not demand any sort of military draft based upon gender.

In how the text says to deal with the captives if the city does choose peace, Deuteronomy 20 is more explicitly egalitarian, and this also contradicts what people who are "Christian" complementarians or critics who reject Christianity because it is supposedly complementarian would suppose the passage teaches.  It says that all the inhabitants, which would include adult, able-bodied men and women, can be used as laborers.  They are of course not to be killed at that point since they are not combatants (Exodus 20:13), and they are not to be raped (Deuteronomy 22:25-27) or otherwise mistreated.  If the captured men or women are abused, they can go free (Exodus 21:26-27), and they are not only to not be unjustly harmed according to the strict, blatant commands of the Torah, but they are also not to be as much as returned if they flee their servitude (Deuteronomy 23:15-16).  This application of gender egalitarianism is even according to the direct wording of the text the obvious doctrine that is taught.

Since 1) men and women are equal (Genesis 1:26-27), 2) both genders have the same moral obligations except where literal anatomy is concerned (Numbers 5:1-7, though it would follow from Genesis 1), 3) Deuteronomy 20 says to treat the captives who submit in peace the same regardless of gender, and 4) the Torah never calls for specifically or universally male soldiers, it can only be the case that the differing treatment of inhabitants who do not choose peace is not ultimately about gender.  Moreover, adding to God's commands is itself sinful (Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 once again).  The point is about killing the enemies of God who fight against those representing him, with the socially conditioned gender "roles" of pagan/non-Israelite societies being sheer cultural constructs the Bible never prescribes and yet being what sets up the men of the cities as warriors or military leaders to be killed.

Though the story is not recounted among the Torah's commandments, in 2 Kings 6:8-23, a prophet of Yahweh named Elisha protects the lives of captured and by all appearances male Aramean soldiers.  When he brings them to the king of Israel, who asks if they should be killed, Elisha asks rhetorically if the king would kill men he has captured with his own sword and bow, feeds the prisoners, and releases them.  Narratives do not establish anything about Biblical morality on their own unless the text directly specified this.  For instance, it does not follow from David committing adultery with Bathsheba after likely seeing her naked while she bathed that seeing the nudity of others or displaying one's own is sinful [2].  Elisha still does not dismiss the Aramean lives because of their gender, their Gentile status, or their connection with an opposing army.  Also, see 2 Chronicles 28:1-13 for an example of men and women being taken captive by Israelites.

The narrative with Elisha has the context of the Aramean soldiers surrounding an area searching for him, so it is not the same as Elisha's faction gathering outside of an enemy city to either make peace with it or besiege it, but it does nevertheless illustrate two things.  First of all, this is closer to the real prescriptions of Biblical ethics in that men are not to be killed or trivialized just because they are male; second, it shows that according to the stories of the Bible, the Israelites did not always behave as fallacy-enslaved complementarian interpreters either for or against the Bible would probably expect based upon Deuteronomy 20.  Men are made in the image of God just like women and thus have the same value and rights.  Even if it first seems to be sexist in one place or another, the Bible provides enough information, just not necessarily all in the same passage, to refute such an interpretation.  A rationalist can discover what it is and is not saying because they do not assume and they alone can know what does and does not follow from a given thing.

[1].  Among many other blog posts detailing why this is a logical necessity if moral obligations exist and why the Bible affirms this, see here:

https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2023/10/deuteronomy-2213-21-part-two.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/06/nudity-in-ancient-jewish-culture.html

Photon Interaction With Electrons: Not The Same As Idealism

I can see exactly where a tree is with regard to some other nearby object--it is impossible for spatial distance, other than the infinity of an empty space in all directions, to be identified without a reference point, such as a tree's positioning by comparison to another tree.  I can see the speed, even if I cannot tell from the movement itself precisely what it is, of a person walking, as well as their direction.  With regard to other sensory stimuli around it, I can perceive their velocity, the combination of speed and direction.  Since these are macroscopic objects or events, the epistemological limitations of the senses apply, but on the level of fallible perception, I can know the position and speed of something at once.  The subatomic issue of observing both qualities at once is tied to far more overtly philosophical matters than this.

For something at the quantum scale, the size of an observed or sought after particle is much, much smaller than anything visible to the unaided eye.  An electron can be hypothetically seen by directing light towards it, but the moment it is noticed, its movement can be affected by the process, so its trajectory will be altered.  This outcome is summarized as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, dealing with how at the quantum scale, location and velocity cannot be fully known at the same time.  The photon used for its light drives the electron away.  Now, this is not supposed to be like a rock breaking glass.  A photon is conceived of as massless and thus immaterial, joining things like empty space within atoms that are nonphysical components of what are often ironically assumed to be naturalistic paradigms.

A photon is immaterial, a massless unit unlike even something as small as electrons, which, despite having a very miniscule mass compared to a proton, still have some mass.  It is bizarre on one level that a massless unit of energy can impact the location of a physical object, however small, but it is not logically impossible for immaterial things to affect physical things, such as when my mind controls how I lift my arm.  String theory, an utterly unverifiable but entirely possible metaphysic of the universe, would even require that physical substance is ultimately created at a quantum level by nonphysical energy.  This is not the same as another somewhat popular idea about quantum physics and its relationship with the immaterial.  Some posit that observation itself, a phenomenological activity, makes the electron behave differently when perceived.

Conscious perception might generate or sustain matter in the sense of metaphysical idealism (but there would still be more than just mind and matter in existence, like logical truths and the space that holds matter).  There would be no epistemological way to prove this given human limitations in the same way I cannot know if matter alone, arranged into the structure of a brain, generates my consciousness.  If what reportedly happens in research is the case, though, and electrons are "tossed" about when photons reach them due to the former's extraordinarily small size, this would not have to be an idealistic phenomenon at all.  The photon is correlatively required to see light, and since the photon affects the electron's state, this alone would not be a mind-influencing-matter event.  It would not be the same as looking at something and making an event occur with no other act than passively focusing one's consciousness in a given place.

I cannot know if object permanence at the macroscopic scale is true.  After all, I obviously cannot perceive matter when I am not perceiving it to find out!  Moreso than this, I cannot know if something similar happens at the subatomic level that I cannot even see.  As obvious as this is upon thinking about it without making assumptions, many people never think about such things.  Either option about the external world at either scale is logically possible but unknowable for me.  A photon "pushing" an electron about would still not be about conscious observation making the electron move.  As strange as it is, it would be about a different immaterial thing, the photon, making this come about.  Quantum physics might very well reduce to idealistic metaphysics when it comes to the causal connection between mind and matter, but not because photons and electrons interact in the way they allegedly do.  In light of photon behavior, the observer-particle relationship is not suggested to be idealistic just because electrons move when one looks for them.

The Link Between Air Conditioning And Climate Change

Alone, the typical person's carbon impact on the planet could be extremely negligible.  It is when people burn fossil fuels or release greenhouse gasses en masse or in certain ways--or when corporations or very wealthy individuals recklessly emit more greenhouse gasses than many other people could across their lifetimes combined--that the effects of contemporary climate change (of the kind human output correlates with) would manifest.  While everything from automobile use to general electricity usage, if powered by fossil fuels, contributes, some emissions or their sources could be worse than others.

The hydrofluorocarbons used in air conditioning, for instance, though they comprise a smaller proportion of reported greenhouse gasses emitted, correlate to worse effects for the environment than carbon dioxide.  In this case, there is an irony in the using of air conditioning in such a world as this: reliance on this artificial cooling method, as widespread and convenient as it is, worsens global warming.  If hydrofluorocarbons are a more potent greenhouse gass than the more common carbon dioxide, the emphasis belongs on how air conditioning would be damaging because of the hydrofluorocarbons themselves and not just because of how it runs on electricity, as would many other things.

The increased heat can make cooling down even more desirable or pragmatically necessary (for health as well as comfort), which can lead to people relying more on cooling methods that use electricity powered by fossil fuels, which in turn amplifies the global heat level and makes cooling even more sought after.  This is the ironic, paradoxical scientific and psychological impact of air conditioning in a world threatened by anthropogenic climate change tied to the release of unnatural levels of carbon into the atmosphere.  A warmer environment increases the need for cooling, yet air conditioning would at certain levels only contribute significantly to the warming that makes it more needed.

Going forward, promoting cooling without adding more fuel to the air conditioning fire is the ideal way to resolve a problem that younger generations would inherit.  Building yet-to-be constructed homes in warmer regions with roofs of a light color, like a soft gray or especially white, allows them to reflect sunlight rather than absorb its heat; dark colors like black correlate with heat absorption, which can make them useful for winter warming and reduce energy consumption in that particular season or in colder parts of the world, but otherwise, even something as simple as having roofs with light colors would avert the need for the same degree of air conditioning reliance, which entails energy cost savings for residents and businesses while also easing the climate change burden.

Some of a conservative bent who oppose the very logical possibility of anthropogenic climate change (which is a strictly logical matter, not a scientific/empirical one, as those with a liberal bent might reject), without even truly knowing what logical possibility is or else they would not misunderstand this point, might at least care about the benefits for their personal finances.  If not for their health as living beings or for the sake of the environment, perhaps this would appeal to them, as irrational as they would be to focus on this at the expense of the other things.  It is not as if conserving energy or using alternative methods of cooling is financially detrimental in itself.

Of course, though political conservatives are associated with anti-environmentalist philosophy, they are also culturally associated with Christianity, which is ultimately quite pro-environment (Genesis 1:1, 6-19, and 31, for instance).  There is nothing irrational, unscientific, or unbiblical about taking environmentalism seriously as long as no assumptions are made, including the confusion of probabilistic scientific evidence for logical necessity/proof or caring more about the environment than the conscious beings that dwell in it.  Even for the pragmatic sake of one's individual flourishing in the long term, preserving the safety of the environment is no minor consideration.