Why The Christian God Cannot Be Proven Without The Bible

A thought experiment: Image you’ve never read or heard of the Bible and don’t know anything about religion(s). Now think about yourself and the world around you. Also think about the breadth of the entire universe while you’re at it. Is there anything about your body, the planet Earth, and the universe at large that SPECIFICALLY points to a single omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being that created the universe who also exists outside of the universe? Moreover, is there anything about your body, the planet Earth, and the universe at large that SPECIFICALLY points to the plans or desires of this entity? 

No.

The greatest problem facing the validity of the creator-god myth is something that doesn’t get brought up enough, if at all. 100% of the time, knowledge of a such a god precedes the alleged evidence found in nature for such a deity’s existence. No one ever in their right mind* with no knowledge of religion has ever looked around themselves and at nature and said, “This is all so incredible, a single entity of some sort must’ve created everything.” No one would say this having any knowledge of how complex things are created and built. While some complex objects can be built by a single designer and engineer, we know that this is no small feat and requires lots of time; typically more than six 24-hour days. There is also every indication that the more complex something is to design and build, the more people are required to complete that task. The Empire State Building in New York City had four architects and required hundreds of people to build it. No one, not even a person who knows next to nothing about erecting buildings would say of the Empire State Building that it looks like something a single person designed and built.

[*By ‘in their right mind,’ we should say ‘in possession of analytic skills’ as primitive men obviously possessed little in the way of reason. Modern man still doesn’t.]

Every single time, knowledge about a religion exists prior to viewing one’s self, the Earth, and the universe through that lens to conclude what one sees aligns with and affirms their beliefs. Here, we should ask why, then, are scriptures the only thing that establishes the existence of a creator-god? Why isn’t the existence of any such deity (and their plans) obvious from our existence and the world around us. A person left to their own devices, growing up alone and never coming into contact with another person would not come to the conclusion of the biblical god, for example. There is absolutely nothing about our bodies, our minds, the world outside of us, or the universe beyond Earth that specifically states that we should obey the 10 Commandments or accept Jesus as our Savior, for instance. No one is born with that specific knowledge. While Christians are fond of saying everyone is born a sinner (thanks to Original Sin), at the same time atheists are fond of saying everyone is born an atheist, the only difference being is that the atheist can’t be disputed and that’s no small thing.

It might be objected that, well, a book is just the way a monotheistic god goes about teaching people about his existence and the need to be saved. I can’t help but think, though, that imprinting his existence and desires directly into our minds without the need for other people’s input would be a much better idea, especially considering you risk eternal damnation for not believing in him. Considering that, God does not seem too wise to me when I can think of a better way of doing things, and particularly in the creation of humans. In creating a person, I would also re-design the knee, which is a poorly ‘designed’ joint. I would dispense with much of the universe as well, seeing how humans will never traverse most of that space. So why would I worship a deity I can outsmart on matters of design? Why would I worship a deity whose own book is the only way to ‘truly’ know them be so obtuse as to lead to numerous sects of Christianity that all profess to be the One True Religion? If this deity did exist, I wouldn’t have much respect for their intellect.

So the challenge to apologists stands: Is there anything about your body, the planet Earth, and the universe at large that SPECIFICALLY points to a single omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being that created the universe who also exists outside of the universe? Moreover, is there anything about your body, the planet Earth, and the universe at large that SPECIFICALLY points to the plans or desires of this entity?

I already know (because I’m omniscient) that at least one Apologist will chime in with DNA as their proof. Only, the complex structure of DNA does not speak to a single creator as I’ve already pointed out, nor does the complexity of DNA tell us anything about the plans or desires of any deity beyond the proclivity to reproduce.

I’ll be waiting a long time for a good answer because all apologists are already tainted by and biased towards their belief, unable to be objective. Meanwhile, I am willing to be objective because I am rational, open to the possibility a creator-god exists given the appropriate proofs, those proofs being arguments or evidence of that single creator as described in the monotheistic traditions that do not fail, that cannot be objected to.

Come, Watson, come. The Game is afoot.

The Crucifixion of Jesus (A Sacrifice?)

I’ve heard it complained that Jesus getting crucified to atone for mankind’s sins wasn’t all that much of a sacrifice if he knew he was going to be resurrected and live forever. I can’t say I haven’t thought this myself because, well, it’s a good point. If Jesus was God, he was omniscient (or is, if he were actually God) and knew everything that was going to happen regarding his alleged sacrifice. While I’m not going to say getting nailed to a cross is the least traumatic thing you could put yourself through, do the pros outweigh the cons in this situation?

 

On one hand, Jesus is going to be humiliated by the Romans, beaten, flailed, and made to bear a large wooden cross prior to the crucifixion. Of course, after that he’s crucified and it takes him approximately six hours to ‘die’ (according to the Bible, from the third hour to the ninth hour). So, pretty gruesome. On the other side of that, given his resurrection, Jesus is going to live harmoniously forever after either serving as God or at God’s right hand (depending upon your theological interpretation). A few days of hell on earth vs. an eternity of heaven that also atones for mankind’s sins. Is that REALLY a sacrifice?

 

Let’s suppose there’s a donut between me and someone I don’t know. We both want the donut terribly bad – we’re hungry! – and the other person has done something terrible and doesn’t even deserve the donut. Then someone outside of our situation makes me an offer: I can have the donut and that’s that, or, give the other person the donut and starve to death. What’s more, if I give up the donut, after I die after weeks of starving, I will live forever and can have all the donuts I could ever want on a moments notice. Assuming the reward was guaranteed, I’m giving up the donut unless or until I consider the downside of living forever. And I’m guessing most people would give up the donut if some wonderful eternal life were a sure thing. After all, it seems most people give up the donut of rational thinking betting on an eternal afterlife and so accept Pascal’s Wager. But I digress…

 

Clearly, the long-term reward is greater than the short-term reward of enjoying the donut and living out my short life. The same is true of Jesus’ ‘sacrifice.’ Again, I’m not saying getting tortured and crucified isn’t going to be a traumatic experience, however, Jesus goes into it knowing full well the outcome. Jesus didn’t give up his life not knowing if it would do any good. By comparison, any man who signed up to fight in WWII not knowing if the Allies would be victorious against fascism and not actually knowing they would go to heaven if they died in combat are much more heroic and make a much larger sacrifice.

 

So, I can’t say I’m impressed with Jesus’ capitulating to himself (again, if he’s God which he says many times) to atone for mankind’s sins. Honestly, if I cared enough about people, I would do the same thing to save the world even without the promise of an eternal afterlife. That’s what heroes in stories do. Difference is, Jesus knew the outcome so I have a hard time saying what he did was even heroic. More likely, it was the ultimate result of the vanity of a man claiming to be a god. Make no mistake; Jesus even told his disciples they would end up joyous after his death, comparing his ‘sacrifice’ to child-birthing [man’spaining?] because he would return thereafter, so it was obvious to Jesus his agony would pale in comparison to the outcome. So, yet again, not a real sacrifice. A real sacrifice requires one gets nothing in return. Jesus got a lot in return. The pros far outweighed the cons.

 

…

 

I’ve searched in vain for a satisfactory response to this critique. Moreover, some have written, rather cheekily, that it makes no sense for God to sacrifice Himself to Himself to satiate a rule he made, that is, (eternal) death due to sin.

 

One defense typically comes in the form that Jesus and God are not strictly the same, though Jesus doesn’t make this distinction when referring to himself as God, nor is the ‘trinity’ doctrine appear in the Bible anywhere. Jesus, as a man, suffers mightily and that makes what he did extraordinary. That may be so, but I’m sure many, many people have suffered worse fates (which speaks to the horribleness of mankind.)

 

Another defense is that it’s not a rule God can change since the rule exist by virtue of God’s nature, but this defense only serves to defeat God’s alleged omnipotence and makes moral rules arbitrary: God’s rules are what they are because of his existence…which means we have no objective standard by which to judge God’s goodness. Whatever God says is good is good and we can’t question it.  Nor can we question the divine plan of God sacrificing (at least) a part of Himself to atone for mankind’s sins, a plan an omniscient and eternal God must’ve known literally forever. Did Jesus not understand the full weight of what he had to do until he was flesh on earth? That’s not an omniscient deity.

 

Defending Jesus’ crucifixion ultimately makes the whole story look less and less plausible so Apologists are better off just not saying anything about it. “But he died for your sins,” they will say. Sure, but really for a few days. Again, again, again, not a true sacrifice. He practically won the jackpot for his troubles.

 

Prelude to a Crucifixion (a short play)

 

God: (Calling down from Heaven) Jesus. Jesus my son, can you hear me?

Jesus: (Exasperated) God, stop calling me your son. I AM you. Or you in the flesh on Earth. Or part of a trinity. Or the Son of Man. Did we ever settle on any of this? I feel like this is going to confuse some people. Don’t you ever worry about all the different kinds of Christianity there’s going to be if we’re not very clear on what’s going to be written about us?

God: Wow, you need to settle down, boy. There are more important things to worry about right now, like taking away the sins of the world, giving the world Atonement. It’s part of the divine plan.

Jesus: So you’re saying flooding the world and killing all the sinners but Noah and his family didn’t get that sorted out? Oh, yeah, I already know this because I’m you.

God: What can I say? People can’t help but be sinners. I know since I created the circumstances that basically makes it impossible for them not to sin. That being the case, you know what I’m going to tell you to do, because it’s the only way.

Jesus: Is it really the only way? I mean, you know a crucifixion is going to hurt, right? Like, really, really bad. You’re telling me there’s no other way for an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity to save His creations from their miserable lives on earth? I feel like we could come up with something easier, or at least classier.

God: Don’t be a snowflake, boy. If it were easy, no one would think it was a sacrifice and be convinced to shower us with tithings. But look on the bright side; a few days of suffering and then you die only to rise from the dead – no small feat – and live happily forever after, literally. I think it’s more than a reasonable trade off.  

Jesus: Okay, just so we’re clear, a few days of excruciating pain for immeasurable happiness forever after; I guess it’s a little bit like a woman giving birth to a child. And, this takes away the sins of the world, although people are going to keep sinning after this and will need to accept me as their personal savior to avoid the fiery pit you…I…created out of love. (Goddamn pronouns…)

God: Yes, it’s so simple its genius. Sure, I could have never created Hell or evil or sin but what fun would that be? Oh, the kick I get out of seeing them struggle against temptation and face the worst life has to offer. All so that they’ll acknowledge me as their king.

Jesus: Careful, we don’t want to admit any vanity. We need to humble ourselves by allowing our own creations to torture me, sort of like what AI is going to do to social media users in the future. But still, when I’m resurrected, I’ll be a king! Ah, but again, just because we’re a king doesn’t mean we’re vain. No, sir, we’re humble. And if people don’t accept me as their savior – after I make this HUGE sacrifice – they will go to Hell for their disobedience to be tortured forever by someone else who disobeyed us. By the way, have you checked on Satan lately to make sure he’s doing his job? It seems counterintuitive that he’d torture people for doing the same thing he did.

God: Don’t get sidetracked, boy, and stick to the plan.

Jesus: Ugh, okay. As long as you’re…I’m…we’re…FUCK – as long it’s going to work and we’re not just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.

God: I’m sorry, did you say something? I think the popcorn is done. Well, get on with it. I don’t have all day. Ha, ha, ha, actually I do. I’ve got forever.

Jesus: Okay then, don’t worry about me. I’ll just go collect some painkilling herbs. Don’t forget me when I’m on the cross!

God: (Picking up the phone) Mel Gibson! Hey, playa, it’s God! Listen, do you have a camera handy?

Jesus: First the dinosaurs, now me…(walks away) 

SCOTUS v. Roe v. Wade

1-The pro-birth movement (for they are not pro-life; that’s absurd) is driven by the talking points of evangelical Christian leaders, and white men basically, who want power over women. Their goal is not to preserve life; their goal is the subjugation of women whose freedom they find abhorrent. Put another way, (primarily Evangelical) men find it repugnant that a woman might have sex for pleasure; they think women should only have sex for the man’s pleasure. Men have long gotten a free ride in this respect but it is the woman who they want to force into paying the price. Obviously, if ‘pro-lifers’ actually cared about life, they wouldn’t ignore a child the moment it is born. If ‘pro-lifers’ actually cared about life, they would hold men accountable for their roles in pregnancies and make sure a child has both a married father and mother, per their traditional family doctrine. I could point out hypocrisy all day but as a friend said, “Technically you can’t be a hypocrite if you have no morals to begin with.” Striking Roe down is about a power struggle, a desire to revisit the times one could punish women for doing anything a man doesn’t like, thus reducing women to property once again. This isn’t about life for as everyone knows, if men could get pregnant they’re be an abortion clinic on every corner.   

2-Evangelical followers are led to believe the Bible makes a case for protected fetuses because of verses in Jeremiah and Isaiah that discuss the sanctity of these two prophets’ lives before they were born. Somehow, evangelical leaders extrapolated upon this to convince their flocks that all fetuses are in need of defense, even in cases where that fetus was conceived out of evil (incest and rape). Interestingly, Jews – using the same scriptures – do not interpret these scriptures the same way, seemingly not convinced this prohibits abortions. Enacting abortion restriction for religious reasons establishes state-sponsored religion, which the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids. The Constitution prohibits the establishment of any religion in the governance of its citizens. (Sorry, but I have to keep saying it for Republicans seemingly know the Constitution about as well as they know the Bible.) We have to assume those who serve on the SCOTUS are not stupid and know that the attack on ‘established law’ (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett even said Roe was in their confirmation hearings) is ideologically driven. For any member of the SCOTUS to vote against Roe now would be intellectually dishonest and completely destroy any trust in this government institution, as if it hasn’t been destroyed already.

3-I cannot harp on it enough: Abortion restrictions are religious in nature as there is no agreement on when life begins. Evangelicals tend to tow the line that life begins at conception, but not only is this ambiguous at best in the Bible, it is an arbitrary distinction at well. What’s special about cells dividing? Is someone no longer a person when their cells stop dividing? Moreover, why not go further back than conception to the sperm and egg? Those are living cells, too. Why not go back to the lives of potential parents? The argument gets teleologically silly quite quickly. In fact, there is no complete agreement/scientific consensus on what life is. There is no complete agreement on what a person is. (Legally, corporations are people, but to whom among us does that make sense to?) It seems like these arguments should be settled before affecting half the populations’ lives. I realize there has to be some starting point to that conversation but religion cannot answer the question of life or personhood effectively and therefore should not be an element of the debate.

4-As an aside, if it’s an aside, how much does the healthcare industry stand to benefit from in increase in pregnancies? A woman who is uninsured (a likely scenario thanks to Republicans rolling back the Affordable Care Act) is going to pay on average anywhere from $30K-$50K depending on vaginal vs. C-section birth. Then there is the cost of raising the child, the likelihood of needing childcare (because where is the father?) which isn’t covered by any insurance, and paying for higher education (though to be fair Republicans are fine with people not attending college). Many industries, if not capitalism in general, stand to benefit from an increased birth rate which has otherwise been declining for years. Knowing how Republicans feel about unregulated, unfettered capitalism (unless you speak out against them, Disney) we shouldn’t be surprised if we find out just how much the industries that benefit from the situation are donating to Republican candidates.

5-Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who – like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said Roe v. Wade was settled law, wrote in the leaked documents that the U.S. needs a domestic supply of infants, no doubt referring to white babies. Not only is population growth nowhere in the Constitution*, which is the job of SCOTUS to interpret, population growth has nothing to do with rights or privacy which the Constitution does address. As far as population ‘growth’ is concerned, all the Constitution says is that Congress may conduct censuses if they wish, so it should be unfathomable that Barrett’s personal opinion would shape her vote on abortion, especially after she explicitly said her personal opinion would not during her confirmation hearing. Her ‘new’ position is only slightly worse than Justice Alito’s justification for overturning Roe who thinks the 14^th Amendment used in Roe that made the case for a woman’s liberty was too vague and not rooted in the text of the Constitution. Unsurprisingly, also not rooted in the text of the Constitution are civil rights for minorities and an individual’s right to bear arms when they are not part of a militia. Alito also references a 13^th century document that posits abortion as murder as part of his justification for overturning Roe. Not only does Alito want to interpret the Constitution as written by white men in the 18^th century, he also wants to interpret it through the lens of documents that have nothing to do with the Constitution. One might suppose prohibitions against murder never change yet we don’t see Alito trying to overturn the death penalty knowing there will be wrongful deaths because of wrongful convictions. SCOTUS has acted in bad faith. Now they want to cry foul when protesters show up outside their houses. It seems like someone doesn’t like having their privacy disturbed.

 

What to do? Vote, of course, but this seems to vague. Vote for Democrats and not throw away votes on third party candidates because you don’t agree with every single element of their platform? Enact federal protections for women’s privacy? Expand the court so that conservative judges cannot perjure themselves and get away with it? (Ah, so this is the ‘judicial activism’ Bill O’Reilly warned us about years ago.) Civil war?

 

I recall being an Army veteran and having signed up to fight for the rights of every man – and woman. No one told me shit was going to turn out like this. The country I fought for, that ideal, was an illusion from the get go it seems. There does not seem a way back from any of this.

5 Irrefutable Proofs that God Does NOT Exist

As Christian (and other theistic) apologists enjoy giving ‘irrefutable’ proofs for God’s existence, I thought I offer up Proof of a Negative – in this case, that God (or any god) does not exist. Of course, I needn’t do this as anyone asserting a positive statement, such that X does exists, has the burden of proof upon them. Moreover, it is quite possible to prove a negative, contrary to popular belief. (Lookup the Law of Non-Contradiction for starters.) So let’s just get right to it:

 

1)     1-There is no universally accepted definition of ‘God’ – What are God’s attributes; how do we know God is God? Ask 100 theists for their definition of God and you’re likely to get about 100 different answers once you get past the Big Three. There will be some similarity in answers, such that God is anthropomorphic, is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, those last three attribute that when taken collectively cannot possibly be true due to contradictions. (For instance, if God knows the future, the future is preordained, which means God has no free will, which means God is not all powerful.) To know God is God there must be a definition that is testable. We can’t simply resort to “God is these things by definition” if such a definition cannot be observed. Even in the world of mathematics, one is one is not true by definition; we have to observe that is the case to know it is true.

2)    2- God is not testable – Not only is the definition of God not testable, in NO WAY can we sense God on a practical level. We cannot see, touch, taste, smell or hear God forthwith. Seeing or hearing God – when other people cannot – is tantamount to a hallucination. Likewise are mental states or emotional ‘feelings’ that God is present or exists. We know by studying brain scans these states or feeling are dependent on biological changes within the brain and body and do not correlate to any information we retrieve through our five senses. ‘Knowledge’ not derived from our five senses is not actual knowledge. Direct experience is the only way to actually know anything about the world, assuming our senses are not faulty.

3)    3- God cannot be told apart from a sufficiently powerful or knowledgeable alien – Let’s suppose some being came to Earth tomorrow and are from the planet Flobblebot, though they neglected to tell us where they are from. They know everything there is to know about the universe to the point of predicting exactly what will happen next and can perform any seemingly magical trick we ask of them, like teleporting us to the surface of the Sun and back without harm. Furthermore, this creature says they are the god of the Bible. Should we then conclude that this being is in fact God? That may seem reasonable but they really aren’t God since they’re from within the universe and not from outside of it as apologists often postulate. So we can’t know any ‘God’ isn’t lying to us, that they aren’t an alien. Any God could in fact be an alien who happens to have advanced power and knowledge.

4)    4- The existence of evil – Surely a definition of evil would be helpful here, unless we can agree ahead of time that something like the murder of a newborn child is evil. Let’s assume we do agree on that. If God is all-knowing, God knew it was going to happen and in not preventing it, is ultimately responsible for the evil since God is the creator of all things. If God could have chosen to stop this event and did not, God is not all-good. If God had a good reason not to stop the event – perhaps the child faced an unpleasant life if allowed to live – we should conclude God is not powerful enough to have stopped the pregnancy in the first place. We also can’t assume God’s actual reasons for doing anything as God’s mind is unknowable as I’ve so often heard from theists. (And, if it were indeed the case that God had a good reason for allowing the murder, this gives us a reason for allowing abortion.) If an all-powerful God wanted to stop a life of suffering, an all-powerful God could do so at any time but curiously never does – because God does not exist. If an existent God has a good reason for allowing suffering – maybe it creates mental and emotional resiliency – this should be stated in scriptures and continue in the afterlife. Never stop growing, right? (If the whole point of heaven is to live eternally without suffering, then it is reasonable to assume suffering is bad. Doesn’t seem like there is in fact a good reason for it.)

5)     5-Theists are often frightened by the prospect of death – If heaven exists why are theists ever afraid? If they are not sure if they are going to get into heaven, that indicates they are not compelled by the particulars of their faith to follow all the tenants of their faith and secure their heavenly reward: eternal life. A ‘true believer’ wouldn’t be scared by the prospect of the unknown – since they know about heaven – or leaving their family and friends behind knowing they are all going to meet again in the afterlife. A theist cannot be scared by dying as obtaining heaven is the entire point of believing in God. But theists are scared all the time. They have fears about death, they doubt, because subliminally at least they know they have accepted a falsehood. If heaven exists, a theist should not be scared by death or any earthly punishments. But they are scared. Ergo, God does not exist.

 

I hope you’ve enjoyed these ‘irrefutable’ proofs, some of which is a little bit tongue-in-cheek on purpose. Surely you’ve spotted an error or two on the level of “The Bible says God exists so God exists.” Have fun picking apart and kindly share your thoughts. Even after doing that it is still the case that no gods exist. Can you prove otherwise?

Philosophy of Identity: Lady Thor or Just Thor?

The long anticipated first trailer for Thor: Love and Thunder dropped yesterday, thereby reigniting the 2014 fury over the appearance of a female Thor in Marvel Comics. Reactions at the time – as they are now – range from “A woman can’t be Thor” to “Feminism is ruing everything” without ever having read the storyline. Basically, the great controversy revolves around whether a woman possessing the powers of the original, well-known Thor can be called Thor. In effect, what’s being asked is whether ‘Thor’ is a name of a particular person or a title. One critic wrote in 2014, “Get your own identity. Thor’s a dude. One of the last manly dudes left.” Many comic book fans were as upset by a female being Thor as they were a black man becoming Captain America.

 

First, why does this even matter? Why are people so upset over some fictional characters? For one thing, once people are beset by tradition it’s difficult for them to see through any other lens. For the Marvel comic book hero traditionally known as Thor, he has particular characteristics and a particular personality. The traditional Thor possesses the traditional attributes of what is considered masculine, so to buck that trend is bound to make misogynists upset. The other reasons for disliking the idea of a female Thor are non-existent. When Eric Masterson of Earth-616 became Thor no one had a problem with this, though supposedly because Masterson was faking it best he could and himself knew he wasn’t the ‘other’ Thor. But when Dargo of Earth-8710 was called Thor despite not being the ‘real’ Thor, still no one cared. A controversy over Thor’s name only came about when a female became involved.

 

So, Thor is indeed a name. However, the well-known fictional comic character’s full name is Thor Odinson. Last time I checked there are many people in the real world whose name is Thor and bear absolutely nothing in common with the fictional hero. But, you don’t see anyone complaining about this. It’s not like Jane Foster upon becoming Thor called herself Thor Odinson. She never did that. Keep in mind that during the original storyline in which Jane becomes Thor and worthy of wielding Mjolnir, Thor himself was unworthy of holding Mjolnir. If we take into account that the inscription on Mjolnir says, “Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the powers of Thor.” Being that many people have wielded Mjolnir, Squirrel Girl among them, the pronoun ‘he’ doesn’t seem to be of particular importance. What’s important is that they be worthy. Considering Thor Odinson becomes unworthy, regardless of the reason, he fails to be the super-powered Thor, meaning ‘Thor’ must be a title and not referring to a particular person. For the time Thor Odinson was not worthy of Mjolnir, he was not really ‘Thor.’ It appears someone can be called Thor without being Thor Odinson, just like it makes sense that someone can be called Iron Man without being Tony Stark, which is exactly what happened in the comics when Stark’s bodyguard Rhodey stood in as Iron Man when Stark wasn’t capable. And as Jane did not, no one else in the comics ever referred to themselves as Thor Odinson when possessing the powers of Thor. For Pete’s sake, even Thor Odinson calls Jane ‘Thor’ during the original storyline knowing he’s unworthy of the title.

 

It might be worth noting that, yes, traditionally Thor is a man’s name, but that’s simply tradition and a lot of traditions don’t exactly have objective origins. There’s no reason Thor can’t be either a male or female’s name, as is the case with names like Pat or Sam. In the comics, when Jane tells other characters to call her Thor (not Lady Thor) it shouldn’t be a big deal. She’s referring to the title, not to being Thor Odinson. Of course that would be ridiculous. Or would it? In another Marvel comic universe, if Jane Foster had been more of Donald Blake type figure who didn’t know she was Thor Odinson until becoming worthy of Mjolnir again, would all the fan-boys still be upset? I would like to think not, but it’d be foolish to underestimate misogynists.

 

And misogyny is the problem here. As comic books have long been the domain of little boys struggling mightily to be ‘men’ (until the last decade when women started reading them) said ‘men’ will fight tooth-and-nail to hold on to what vestiges of culture they think belong to them. So, logic or reason is not going to easily be found among such fanboys. None of them are going to stop and think, “Hmm, can Thor be a title like Captain America, Iron Man, or Batman?” Honestly, so many damn people have been Batman in the comics and some never bothered to correct other characters when called ‘Bruce’ while they were wearing the cowl. But a woman going by the name of Thor, suddenly there’s a problem. GTFOH. 

(Some critics even went so far as to simply state turning Thor into a woman was crappy retconning but those same people didn't have shit to say about the reveal that Mjolnir was sentient during the same storyline.)

The Philosophy (and Review) of The Matrix Resurrections

The Matrix Resurrections will certainly go down as the weakest entry in the franchise, probably, for several reasons: There isn’t much philosophy (no wtf mindbenders), too much time is spent on Neo’s life dealing with suppressed memories, too much nostalgia, action sequences that are lacking and when they aren’t it’s actually too much, some rather large plot holes, and Agent Smith’s ultimately trivial role in Neo, Trinity, and Smith’s, um, trinity.

 

To make a long story short, the story revolves around Neo regaining his memories after having them suppressed after the machines resurrect him and Trinity (following the events of The Matrix Revolutions) in order to harvest the unique energy the two have together. Once Neo is free of the Matrix, he must re-enter the program to save Trinity. Lots of kung fu and gunfire ensues.

 

What does the movie get right? Neil Patrick Harris’ role is a delight and the fight between Neo and Smith in the basement is actual pretty good once Smith starts spewing the details. What the movie also gets right is in casting cynicism on the modern age. Whereas the previous movies took it as a given that a good percentage of enslaved human beings would rather subject themselves to the truth than live a comfortable lie, Resurrections does an about face, acknowledging the comfort our digital distractions have provided to make our enslaved live more tolerable. Whereas the previous iteration of Morpheus championed freedom of choice (which was acknowledged as a problem by the Architect), the new Morpheus highlights time and again that choice is an illusion. Interestingly, no one seems to mind. The movie doesn’t run with this theme though and chooses (!) to focus on the power of love in overcoming the powers-that-be. Thus, the spirit of the original trilogy is found wanting.

 

The Matrix Resurrection still makes a good point here, one that can been seen quite readily in American culture, from politics to entertainment. As the Analyst says in the new movie, “[People] don’t want freedom or empowerment. They want to be controlled. They crave the comfort of certainty.” He also says to Neo, “Do you know that hope and despair are nearly identical is code?” implying that a little bit of hope mixed with a little bit of despair is perfect for controlling people’s illusions. This is exactly the state of the U.S. right now as the furthest Left fringes of American culture battle the furthest elements of the Right. This culture war in the U.S. is all or nothing, fully binary, ones and zeros just like in the Matrix.

 

Neither side will admit to being controlled, though, as both fringes operate solely on emotion and cannot be reasoned with. When this is the case it is easy – with tools such as the internet – to trap people in an echo chamber from which they don’t want to escape because to do otherwise would be psychologically uncomfortable. Confirmation bias is a tool of control.

 

Another point made be Resurrections which goes hand-in-hand with the other message: So what if the Matrix isn’t real? Our realities are fictions we’ve created out of (faulty) memories. It doesn’t matter if we’re trapped in a fiction because we’re trapped in a fiction no matter what. Our minds are not capable of capturing all of reality. Nor are memories reliable, which is troubling since our behaviors are as largely derived from our history as our biology. In fact, every time we recall a memory it becomes destabilized within our wet-work and becomes prone to error. It should be alarming that eyewitness testimony is allowed in court knowing what we know about how memories work and how prone they are to influence. Being that we can’t trust our memories, we’re forced to make up narratives that provide the illusion of mental stability, because to admit you’re insane typically gets you physically restrained in some manner or at least cast out of society. So, you might as well choose a fiction that is most comforting to you so long as your basic freedom and social needs are met.

 

Even knowing all this, too many people insist on championing ‘the truth.’ Anyone peddling ‘the truth’ is either an egomaniac or trying to get something from you. Why did Neo want to know the truth? To quench his desire for special knowledge. Why did Morpheus need to point out the truth to Neo? Because Morpheus thought Neo could save humanity. Why are religious zealots always trying to convert you? Because they seek power and control. No religious zealot knocks on your door or flies planes into buildings for the sake of the truth. People pay a great deal of lip service to the truth but this often seems to be another tool of manipulation. It has to be because unless we’re talking mathematics there is no truth. All we have are interpretations of perceptions. Seriously ask yourself why the truth matters. It might matter whereas our actual survival is at stake (man-eating lion = dangerous) but how often is our literal survival threatened on a daily basis?

 

It appears large swaths of human civilization don’t want freedom and don’t want reality. If they wanted freedom, they wouldn’t suffer the constant and often successful attempts to control them. Even couples wouldn’t marry if they wanted freedom as long-term marriages (in the modern world) require compromise to be successful. People don’t want reality either, as evidenced by the acceptance of outright lies and love of fantastical stories. There are so many ways in which we are not free and so many ways in which we ignore reality. Question yourself as to why you’ve accepted this and only then can you begin to grasp the fundamentals, they only truths to be had.

 

The Matrix Resurrections won’t go down in cinematic history as one of the greatest movies ever, or maybe it will. It depends on what we want to believe.  If it is what we want to believe, it doesn’t really matter if its actually true or not. No one’s survival depends on it. In the case of the Matrix, the people enslaved in it are arguably better off staying where they are.

Ah, GOP Hypocrisy

 

If there is one thing humans are good at its being hypocrites. I know I’ve been guilty of it from time to time, though I would qualify that by saying my instances of hypocrisy are relatively minor. It’s not like I’m in charge of governmental policy that affects thousands to millions of people. When it comes to hypocrisy political parties take the cake, especially the GOP.

 

Yes, Democrats are guilty of hypocrisy from time to time – the further-Left elements are all for equality as long as you’re not white – but for the most part Democrats are not malicious when they do their about-faces. Remember that Democrats are merely dumb whereas the GOP is actually mean. For instance, the GOP went into an uproar over SCOTUS nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson’s supposed leniency on pedophiles yet the same people have absolutely nothing to say about Matt Gaetz, Roy Moore, Jim Jordan, Trump being on Epstein’s flight manifests, or the Tennessee bill currently being advanced that would legalize children getting married. As political analyst Brian Tyler Cohen put it on Twitter, "Literally the same week Republicans are desperately trying to label everyone else pedophiles and groomers the Tennessee GOP is advancing a bill that would literally legalize child marriage. Truly beyond parody.” I wish I could say it ends there but it does not.

 

Hunter Biden’s laptop is a hot topic with the GOP right now, the allegations being Hunter Biden used his father’s influence to land a cushy job with a foreign government, sold access to his father, made some questionable tax payments, and had salacious personal material on it. How is any of this a bigger deal than the Trump kids using government influence to rake in almost a billion dollars while government advisors, Trump’s missing tax returns (and proven instances of business and charity fraud), or Trump’s infidelities? “You know what wasn’t on Hunter’s laptop? 15 boxes of classified and top-secret documents. That shit was at Mar-A-Lago,” tweeted Andrea Junker in reference to the documents Trump stole when he left office.

 

The GOP also claims to be the party of ‘law-and-order,’ though that appears to not really mean anything. At last count, at least 11 Trump Administration advisors had been arrested in connection with criminal activity, to say nothing of the hundreds of QAnon supporters arrested during the J6 riot that was incited by the Trump Administration itself. Not coincidently, the father of the woman who stole Nancy Pelosi’s laptop on J6 has been arrested for – you guessed it – child pornography. The GOP doesn’t seem to realize if Joe Biden is guilty by association with his son, then…

 

Oh, and hey, remember when Moscow Mitch McConnell denied Obama a SCOTUS nominee because it was ten months before the next presidential election but then rammed conservative Amy Coney Barrett through less than a month before the 2020 election?

 

To be fair, the GOP isn’t always hypocritical. More and more they’ve been showing their true colors and being outright racist as in the case of Ohio Republican senate candidate JD Vance, the “Do you hate Mexicans?” candidate who apparently blames Mexicans for his mother’s opioid addiction, nevermind that the drugs were prescribed by American doctors. Oh, and remember how much the GOP hates ‘cancel culture’? But what are they doing but calling on Disney to be cancelled for opposing DeSantis’ attack on the LGBTQ community? They also want to cancel workers rights, voting rights, and marriage rights. The GOP also wants to protect children, by not doing anything about school shootings.

 

Again, I’m not going to say I’m not a hypocrite from time to time. We’re all hypocrites. It’s just that some people love it and are better at it than others. Why? The human animal isn’t exactly the most reasonable thing around. So, if you’re going to be a hypocrite, at least admit to it least you be a hypocrite about being a hypocrite. That’s a sign of a mental health problem, meaning you’re bat-shit crazy. It appears the GOP has no problem with that.