All Theology Is Philosophy

Every theology is a philosophy that itself hing on other philosophical truths transcending religion and theism alike (like logical axioms); it is their consistency with axioms that dictate their very possibility.  Religion itself is but a subset of theism just as theism in all of its variations is within philosophy.  Everything is philosophical on a metaphysical and epistemological level because everything is either true or false.  From Islam to Zoroastrianism to the pseudo-religion of Hellenic paganism (the Olympians are not uncaused causes and thus cannot possibly be true gods or goddesses), theology is obviously and inescapably philosophical.  For some reason, there is a misconception accepted by some that theology and philosophy are separate but adjacent categories of worldview.  This can only be false because every ideology is a philosophy and every truth about reality is philosophical.

The details of one religion's metaphysics could wildly differ from those of another, but every religion has metaphysics.  Everything from the moral nature of God, if there is one, to the relationship of the material world to God to the issue of monotheism or polytheism is a matter of ontology, since everything that exists or does not exist is a matter of being.  Each of these details is either true or false, some independent of others, though their logical possibility is always determined by whether or not they contradict axioms and other necessary truths.  A religion that is possible but false is consistent with logical axioms and yet still happens to not match reality perfectly; a religion that contradicts itself or something like the logical law identity is not even capable of being true under any circumstances because axioms and what follows from them cannot be false.

Likewise, every religion is subject to the same epistemological truths of reason.  If something is not logically self-necessary like axioms (the fact that something is true being among them because this being false still requires its veracity) or true by necessity in light of something else that is verifiable, it could be reality--and still cannot be known to be.  Whether the afterlife of Christianity or any other non-contradictory afterlife is true would be an example of this.  It simply is not demonstrable no matter how much evidence there is for or against it.  Something can be true or false without being verifiable one way or the other.  Indeed, this is the case with many things.  Whether or not God loves humans or the past has existed for more than a moment are examples.  In every instance, however, a religious system, natural theology, or deistic ideology is a philosophy.

It is asinine to think of there being a fundamental difference between these things rather than the former being a specific type of the latter.  Nothing could ever be beyond philosophy because all ideas are true or false and this is itself an issue of philosophy.  If anything, that more explicitly philosophical concepts (like the truth of logical axioms or sensory skepticism) are far more abstract, both metaphysically and epistemologically, than what the masses erroneously associate with popular religions is misinterpreted.  Some people might regard anything more abstract than whatever theological or scientific notions are embraced in their community as something "other" than the ideological norm and confuse this category for philosophy.  They are wrong because such ideas can only be wrong.  A dog is an animal, and a human is not a dog, yet both are still animals.  Not that analogies are necessary to know these things, all theological matters are by necessity philosophical ones.

The Truth About Definitions

There is no such thing as a definition that does not use words, and there is no such thing as being able to clarify every word in a sentence without providing separate definitions, which already uses words that cannot all have yet been defined in initial conversations between individuals.  It is logically impossible to preemptively provide precise definitions without using some words that have not been yet defined in that sentence or conversation for the other party; prolonged or repeated discussions still inevitably started with then-undefined words.  This is a paradox of interpersonal communication through language.  If people could see into each others' minds, language would be entirely unnecessary.  Our lack of telepathy makes it mandatory for precise communication.  Still, it is impossible to start using language in conversations with somebody and, even on the level of what they have said about their words, know all of their clarifications about their terms.

As an aside, it is absolutely asinine to believe that a dictionary definition must always be correct, since words, as I have often pointed out, have no set meaning but what their users mean by them.  A dictionary definition can also be conceptually inconsistent.  Belief to the erroneous contrary also rests invariably on the fallacious epistemological appeal to authority.  A dictionary furthermore cannot escape using words undefined in the explanatory sentences where they are employed to define specific terms.  Eventually, inside or outside of a dictionary, you will also have to use some words to define others which have already been used in some other definition or have to resort to synonymous words or phrases because the possibilities of language are finite.  On a purely linguistic level, this is inevitably circular.  The logical impossibility of infinite regress and the sheer arbitrariness of language make this the case.

If this was not true, it would only mean there are always newly introduced and thus undefined words every time someone attempts to clarify terminology.  The very fact that some things are logically possible and impossible also already requires that there cannot be an infinite number of new words, of course.  Words can only vary so much before they would be the same.  The units constituting words in any language can only be arranged in so many ways, despite how incredibly large the number of linguistic possibilities are.  It does not make a difference in one regard that the number of linguistic possibilities cannot be anything other than finite, though.  Definitions are only so helpful because they inescapably use other (at some point) undefined words to define the word(s) in question even as a group of definitions has to inevitably use words in a circular manner to maintain consistency.

However, just because someone uses words to define other words in a circular way does not mean they are holding to the fallacies of circular reasoning.  There is no other choice for non-telepathic beings using an intrinsically arbitrary system of sounds and symbols, yet fallacies can be avoided in full.  Circular reasoning, now, is erroneous because something cannot be known to be true from itself if it is not inherently true.  Logical axioms cannot be false; for it to be true that nothing follows by logical necessity from other things or that what follows logically is not necessarily true, it would have to follow logically from the nature of reality that logic is false.  Thus, this being false still requires that it is true.  It is not circular reasoning to realize, believe, or linguistically affirm this, as circular reasoning is an epistemological matter of assuming that something which is not necessarily true is true because of itself, and logical axioms are intrinsically metaphysically true and thus epistemologically self-evident.

One's memory is either accurate or not, in spite of how this cannot be verified by non-omniscient beings.  It would be circular reasoning to think that one's memory is accurate because one remembers it to be--it is not self-necessarily true or necessarily true in light or any other knowable fact that my memories of events are accurate.  Logically necessary truths dictate the nature of memory either way, since they are necessary truths, such as how having a memory does not prove more than that the potentially misleading memory exists.  Obviously, using words to define words or having to at some point reuse words in ways that are linguistically circular when explaining terms does not mean one is actually denying any logical necessities about such things, or believing in assumptions.  Language is an arbitrary construct as it is, so there is no such thing as inherent meaning to a linguistic sound or symbol anyway, however socially entrenched it is.  The intentions of the speaker/writer determine the meaning of their words.  Words are therefore simply exchanged either by fools who think they can know with absolute (true) certainty what others mean by their words or by those who knowingly use them as what they are: a fallible, epistemologically unverifiable, but probabilistically useful way to convey concepts, feelings, and intentions.

The circularity does not matter here.  With the words used by oneself, one can know exactly what is meant by them, since a person's own mental states, which encompass their thoughts and intentions, cannot be illusory as long as they make no assumptions and look to logic.  A person who makes no assumptions cannot seem to have a thought or intention without actually having it, or else it could not seem to themself that they are experiencing it.  No, I do not know if looking at a chair or a bush means it actually exists outside of my consciousness, but I cannot be misperceiving the fact that I am perceiving it, because what is perceived is what is perceived.  One's own mind, along with the logically necessary truths that metaphysically govern and transcend it, is a refuge of absolute certainty for those who do not make assumptions.  No matter what words I use to linguistically define logically necessary truths, sensory experiences, physical objects, my thoughts and feelings, and so on, I do not have to succumb to circular reasoning.

That is up to each person to avoid since it is within their power to go in either direction.  Human communication is imperfect because definitions, even from a purely rationalistic person, are still arbitrary and incomplete since words are constructs without inherent meaning, and since definitions always involve words that can only be defined with other definitions or have to fall back on synonyms to escape this.  For this and other reasons, like the inability to actually see into the other party's thoughts, communication between non-telepathic beings never involves anything more than probabilistic evidence for what the other person means.

Does The Bible Teach A Flat Earth?

Today, one can hear people casually say things like "The sun rises in the East and sets in the West."  It does not follow from the use of this language that people think Earth is stationary and the sun literally rises over it, as opposed to both celestial bodies being in rotation and one being in orbit around the other.  These words would, if this is not actually what the speaker holds to, be intended to describe the way certain cosmological phenomena appear to the inhabitants of Earth on its surface.  Here, the sun's appearance in the sky each morning makes it appear to rise and its descent each evening makes it seem to set.  The perspective of these events on the planet itself does not mean this is exactly what is happening--not that the sun is not behaving as perceived, the epistemological truths of sensory skepticism aside, but in that this does not exclude Earth and the sun spinning to cause the appearance of a rising and setting star.

Likewise, using such words used to convey how this appears to humans on Earth does not mean someone believes anything other than axis rotation of spherical bodies, the world moving in outer space to orbit the sun, is true or probable.  They would not have to believe that Earth is a landmass on a disc, Ra riding far above in the sky to illuminate the world every day, as is said about the ancient Egyptians.  They would likewise not have to believe any other erroneous or improbable things about cosmological metaphysics.  However, even in contemporary America, people use non-literal language all the time to speak of the sun and world we live on.  In all likelihood, these individuals will not be accused of automatically believing in a flat Earth.  I have written before about how a spherical Earth is very evidentially probable and is something certain Biblical verses are very congruent with, even if they are not direct acknowledgement of a spherical planet [1].

There are also verses like Revelation 7:1 and 20:7-8 that refer to the "four corners of the earth."  While parts of Revelation are absolutely presented as literal, with some figurative elements receiving their literal explanation (Revelation 1:19-20 with verse 12), this is the book of the Bible most prominently featuring exotic imagery and poetic descriptions.  It does not follow from the mere phrase "four corners of the earth" that these words are to be taken literally in the strictest sense.  One could use such language and still be thinking of the world as a sphere instead of a square or rectangular (squares might be formally defined as a subset of rectangles, but this is not how many people colloquially use the terms, and words only mean whatever is intended by them, as is directly relevant to the Biblical phrase in question).  The Bible does not say "The earth is not spherical," something that would directly put forth the notion of a flat planet.

What it says could easily be a poetic summary of the four cardinal directions or the full scope of the world.  If this by necessity means the Biblical authors think the world is flat or a disc, then modern speech referring to a rising or setting sun would by necessity mean all of us who use such words think Earth remains in place and it is the sun that goes around the planet.  Of course, the latter does not necessitate that belief, and neither does the former require that someone believes in a flat world.  Even separate from the Biblical verses that likely endorse a spherical world (like Luke 17:34-35 seemingly saying the return of Christ happens both at night and during the day), there is nothing about the "four corners of the earth" that in any way claims the planet is flat.  Besides, many of the people who might object to this phrase in Revelation 7:1 and 20:8's might also think Revelation as a whole is figurative to the point of great ambiguity, which would contradict their assumption that the four corners wording must be or is probably literal.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2023/10/the-geometry-of-earth.html

Game Review--Tomb Raider Reloaded (Android)

"It's not every day you come face to face with the Cretaceous period."

--Lara Croft, Tomb Raider Reloaded

Tomb Raider Reloaded might or might not have been through very tumultuous updates since its release; I did not play it immediately upon launch, so everything I observed is from within a particular window of time afterward.  What this mobile game offers is a very specific, alternate direction for the franchise.  This is not Rise of the Tomb Raider, with its third-person gameplay and exploration of a psuedo-Christ figure, whether or not God reveals himself through the natural world, and the nature of eternal life in a world like ours.  It is not Lara Croft Go, a game that makes up for its lack of ideological and narrative depth with its brilliantly executed turn-based mechanics.  It is a very different Tomb Raider game, and this is not a negative thing in itself--besides the potentially enormous time that can be required to complete the game for free.

Production Values

Tomb Raider Reloaded's stylized graphics are perfectly at home in the smartphone format and maintain consistent quality through the entire game.  Lara and her different outfits, the enemies that range from animals like snakes and bats to screen-filling bosses, and the 11 different environments (as of the last time I played prior to scheduling this post) are animated very well.  Many, many enemies can appear onscreen at the same time without drops in performance.  In some levels, the number of opponents that manifest at once will be so overwhelming that without persistent upgrades and/or fortunate in-run bonuses, it would be almost impossible to survive.  Crisp sounds like Lara's gunfire and the noises from miscellaneous creatures complement the aesthetic strengths and fairly smooth stability of the game.

Gameplay

Each of the game's regions (Peru, Greece, Egypt) has its own levels, and each level has its own stages, ranging from 20-50.  With puzzle or "escape" stages periodically appearing, the majority of each stage in a level is devoted to fighting enemies.  You do have to stand still to attack unlike the firing mechanic in Mighty Doom, a very similar game that is also a spin-off from an established mainstream gaming franchise; in that game, you automatically shoot even if you never stop moving.  This delays the clearing of dangerous levels in Reloaded but adds elements of strategy and vulnerability completely absent from Mighty Doom.  As you clear a stage, Lara's XP meter fills up, granting an ability of your choice (out of a handful of options), like an elemental grenade that is launched every four seconds at a nearby enemy, a ring around Lara that damages enemies inside the radius, or a two second boost of 50% to damage every eight seconds.  These abilities only last for the duration of the level, having nothing to do with the permanent upgrades to weaponry, amulets, and so on.

The weapons you can use range from Lara's signature dual pistols to a shotgun, an assault rifle, a spear, a chakram, and more, so there are instruments beyond firearms.  Along with other equippable items like masks, amulets, and ammunition types, these can be upgraded by using coins and a certain amount of "manuals" for each category (weapons, masks, etc.), which can be obtained at random by finishing stages.  Likewise, though they use a distinctive upgrade system, individual outfits can be upgraded--and already have their own base stats and special abilities.  The Bomber Jacket featured in many of my screenshots, for instance, lets you burn enemies upon attacking them; it simply takes a very particular amount of separate collectibles to unlock a new outfit.  Also, artifact pieces recovered from puzzle stages show up at random, but once secured, allow even more passive bonuses like additional health points or a reduction in damage from direct contact with enemies, and these can also be upgraded.  The equipment, skins, and artifacts thus contribute to a rather nuanced web of items and enhancements.

Now, it is precisely the details of the upgrade system that can force the player to spend so much time grinding.  Combining three of the same, say, weapons or ammunition types of the same color forges a superior version of the item, which then requires two others of its new color before the equipment can be enhanced again in this way.  This process becomes extremely lengthy for people unwilling to pay for microtransactions because you cannot control which items you will receive from playing through levels or from item crates (one is free every day if you watch an ad).  It could easily take 5-10+ months of playing, depending on how frequently someone gives the game their attention, to become powerful enough to complete the entire game without paying money to accelerate the process.  Thankfully, there is some variety.  You do not have to replay whichever main levels have already been unlocked in order to gradually gain resources.  Weekly events such as banner brawl, where Lara has to remain within migrating circles to earn points as enemies start to swarm her, offer something different, yet the same handful of events are eventually cycled through.

Story

Lara travels from Peru to Greece and eventually Egypt in search of various artifacts, with no developed narrative (although none is necessary here).  Her friend Anaya and her butler appear to provide bonuses every so many stages, but they do not speak, and Lara herself only speaks in introductory cinematics.

Intellectual Content

Reloaded does not dive into (as fallaciously as Lara from the 2013-2018 games handles herself philosophically) subjects from the reboot trilogy like the metaphysics and logical possibility of supernatural phenomena, what eternal life in the present human condition would be like, and so on, but in this genre of mobile gaming, this is not a problem though it is not even a puzzle game like Lara Croft Go [1].  Upholding the imagery of the franchise and adapting it for a smartphone-exclusive experience, it does not need to do more than provide challenging combat that sometimes calls for careful observation and strategizing, and in this the game succeeds.  It is not a narrative or theme-driven game and this is not to its detriment.

Conclusion

The core problem, other than occasional server issues, is not the microtransactions themselves, but that without them, the game takes such an enormous amount of to complete all the way to the end of whatever is the currently released final location.  Tomb Raider Reloaded is otherwise great at what it sets out to do: providing a stage-based, isometric shooter take on Lara Croft's adventures suited to the mobile format.  It is difficult enough that players must actually put in effort and take the time to grind for items but strong enough in its mechanics to have competence and depth.  For what it is, at least in the form I experienced, Tomb Raider Reloaded is a generally well-designed game great for bursts of play and for casual or thoroughly invested players alike.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2023/05/game-review-lara-croft-go-ps-vita.html

The Wages Of A Hired Worker

Mosaic Law addresses both the state of debt servitude, with the male and female servants of one's own countrypeople (or foreigners living alongside them according to Leviticus 19:33-34) to be freed from both debt and service every seven years (Deuteronomy 15:1-3, 12-14), and the more temporary state of hired work.  With Biblical servanthood, a man or woman sells their labor to pay off a as much of a debt as can be diminished in six years (Exodus 21:2).  A hired worker could labor on a more ongoing basis.  While he or she would have the human rights shared by all people, such as the right to not be murdered (Exodus 20:13, Exodus 21:12-14), and they like servants are certainly not to be physically or otherwise mistreated (Exodus 21:26-27), some additional Biblical obligations towards them are detailed.

Whereas Deuteronomy 24:14-15 focuses on paying poor physical laborers of one's own or a foreign nationality their wages before sunset, the very day of their work as opposed to up to two weeks later as with today, Leviticus 19:13 expands this to all workers by saying to not withhold wages overnight, regardless of the person's economic class or category of labor.  Every hired man and woman is to be paid the day they work instead of waiting days or even weeks as is customary in the modern United States.  Yes, the Bible teaches that not paying one's daytime workers the literal day they work (night laborers would have to be paid before the following sunset), before the sun has even started to descend in the sky, is a universal injustice.

Though the text of Leviticus 19 would not need to clarify this part--since foreigners can be hired workers, there is nothing in the Torah that allows for a potential difference in how foreigners are to be treated regarding professional labor and in many other ways (Exodus 22:21, 23:9, 12, Leviticus 19:33-34, 24:22), and Deuteronomy 24:14-15 already touches on this--a foreign worker in the midst of one's community should never be exploited in this way either.  Again, this is contrary to a notion and attitude that I have encountered in my nation over and over holding that foreign workers, and more particularly, foreigners from certain regions of the world, are to be used as if they are only a means to an end, paid as little as one can get away with and probably not the day of their work.

In America, where even today, some employers do everything from excusing months-long accumulations of payroll errors to underpaying employees to disregarding human workers the moment they can save a dime, businesses/employers are typically not concerned with enduring their workers receive their pay promptly.  Even then, the compensation is often the bare minimum that employees will stomach or that the employers can legally get away with, with little to no focus on reason or morality as opposed to legality and pragmatic selfishness.  That delayed payment is overtly condemned in the Bible but not by many who identify as Christians is another example of how for all its extraordinarily superficial and misleading "Christian" trappings, America as a whole is nowhere near adhering to the commands of the Bible related to the "workplace" or the broader treatment of fellow humans.