Batman v Superman - Why it Sucks

My list of grievances against the film Batman v. Superman (BvS) is quite long. In this post, I have condensed my most important and painful qualms with the film. There are additional issues I have with the film, but these are some of the strongest.

Batman: the Murderer
This Batman was one of the worst portrayals of the character, from a writing standpoint. Here we have a Batman who is vicious, angry, and irrational. Nowhere do we see his brilliance, his calculation, his love for humanity. Instead, we have a man who brands criminals with a hot iron, who tears through the streets of Gotham destroying property, killing people, and causing general mayhem. Here is a Batman that says lines such as, "If there is even a 1% chance he could turn on his, we have to take it as an absolute certainty." That is some baffling ethics right there, considering Batman kills a few dozen people himself in the film.

Batman's detective skills are abysmal in this film. He very easily gets spotted going into Lex's server room (which is near all the wait staff for some reason), gets his flash drive stolen by Wonder Woman, and gets duped into a blind rage by a handful of Polaroid photographs and Joker-esque writings. At no point does he do what Batman does best: figure things out. He's just a rampaging maniac. He really is no better than the criminals. How can we support or trust or love this character? He offers us no redeeming qualities. No heart. No intelligence. He's all muscle and anger. Superman is right to have a problem with Batman in this film - he's crazy! Batman isn't a vigilante helping apprehend bad guys, he's a maniac out for blood. He's much more like the Punisher than he is Batman.

Superman: the Man of Cold Steel
This Superman is easily the most inhuman of any Superman I've seen. He is cold, uncaring, and apparently unaffected by the suffering of others. Instead of compassion in his face, we see annoyance. This was particularly poignant in the lead-in film, Man of Steel.

During his battle with Zod, Superman is apparently more upset by the death of one of his own people (Zod) than he is with the thousands of humans undoubtedly killed during the battle. Once the dust settles, instead of leaping into action in an attempt to rescue as many people as he, he makes out with Lois Lane. The get all smoochy while there are people literally pinned under rubble, people suffering, people still in danger. All he does is smooch and look around with a stern glare. How callous do you have to be to be thinking of romance while your adopted city crumbles and the people you claim to deeply care for are suffering and dying? How disconnected from humanity do you have to be to literally make out in the crater you just made?

This theme continues in BvS. We are told that Superman is trying to help us. We are told he is our protector and that people love him. But look at his face throughout this film!

That isn't a happy man. That's a disappointment dad, not a champion of humanity. He finds it incomprehensible that these puny humans dare question his motives. That they ask why Superman wasn't involved in rebuilding Metropolis. This is a man that I cannot empathize with. His only real concern seems to be to clear his name and have sex with Lois. He breaks international laws, crosses borders, and wreaks havoc to save his frequently-endangered girlfriend.

When the battle with Batman begins, Superman could easily fly a bit higher and simply tell Batman that Lex Luthor is manipulating both of them into fighting one another. Batman (if true to his character, which may not be the case in this film) would see the logic in this assertion and commence a beat-down on Mr. Luthor. Instead, the moment between Superman and Batman that puts them on the same page is the realization that their mothers have the same first name. Baffling.

Lex Luthor: the Joker
This Lex Luthor was an eccentric, high-pitched, scraggly-haired lunatic who places the heroes in lose-lose, devil's-choice style situations with no other motivation than to bring them down. That sounds much more like the description of the Joker than one of the most intelligent, careful, and methodical minds on the planet. Luthor plays the long game. Luthor thinks ten steps ahead. Luthor always has a back-up plan. Luthor is not a mumbling eccentric burdened by his own brilliance.

I mean, look at this guy.

This isn't the face of a man you respect and fear. A man with charisma, with power, and with a plan. This is the face of someone you want to punch. Someone who acts like a know-it-all, who's smug about it, and who is generally unlikable. Lex Luthor is a villain, but he has a natural charisma and force of personality that makes him a presence. That gravitas was missing with this Lex.

What was Lex's motivations for taking down Batman and Superman? He was...jealous of Superman's power? What did he have against Batman? Batman was apparently snooping into the "Super" files that Lex had, though they were simply a contrived way to wink at us and say, "Look who'll be in the next films!" They appeared to not contain anything damning against Luthor. The only detail that was bad for Lex was the fact that he orchestrated Superman's negative PR - something he really didn't need to do, considering Superman was already a distrusted by the populace.

It makes the viewer wonder: what was Lex's end-goal? Did he really think that both Superman and Batman would kill each other? Why did he make Doomsday? It turned on him instantly. I don't see a way that Lex would emerge "on top" after these events. How would he profit?

A Heartfelt Raccoon
Compare these characters to Rocket Raccoon from Guardians of the Galaxy. In the first chunk of the film, we meet the bombastic and prickly Rocket Raccoon. He's all bravado and sass and guns and explosions. He's a bit annoying. However, there's a key scene in which the group of misfits is captured. In this sequence, Rocket is forced to remove his clothes and armor. We see his tiny, frail body. We see the painful looking cybernetic modifications that were done to him. The character is clearly ashamed by it - it's a source of his rage. He was violated and modified to become the person he is now. In that scene, the character becomes so vulnerable that we can't help but empathize, that we accept his bombast and prickle and start to cheer for him.

It's telling that we can empathize and support a talking raccoon more than two of the most iconic super heroes in history. How much more human was Rocket in that scene than even Batman was in the totality of BvS? It's a testament to Marvel's skill and a glaring example of DC's disconnect from its audience. Marvel was able to give more character to this talking raccoon, who was virtually unknown by audiences, than DC could give to Batman. BATMAN!

A Civil Vengeance
Two secondary characters in the film Civil War demonstrated the right way to push characters toward vengeance and to have them reconcile. T'Challa, consumed with vengeance for his murdered father, mercilessly hunts Zemo, who himself is consumed by vengeance due to the loss of his family. The theme of this film is vengeance and its destructive power. In one of the final scenes, Zemo sits in the snow and talks of his dead family to T'Challa. Zemo has a great line (delivered well): "I am sorry about your father. He seemed a good man. With a dutiful son." The villain of the film apologizes. And we believe it. We empathize. This moment between the two men frees T'Challa of his anger, as he sees the depths to which it can pull you down.

These two characters had a more complete and satisfying arc than either Batman or Superman. Zemo and T'Challa's vengeance is understandable. Relatable. I couldn't relate to Batman or Superman in BvS. Their motivations were alien. Remote. There was no humanity to them.

Dreams
The film has five, yes, FIVE dream sequences. (1) During the intro credits, we see Bruce reliving his parents' deaths and figurative transformation into Batman; (2) Bruce dreams of visiting his parents' crypt and is attacked by a bat-demon; (3) Batman receives a prophetic vision while asleep of a post-apocalyptic wold in which Superman has apparently allied with Darkseid, and he then wakes to... (4) Batman has a dream-within-a-dream in which a time-travelling Flash delivers a cryptic warning; and (5) Superman has a dream sequence of his deceased father in the mountains around the Fortress of Solitude.

That is too many dream sequences for a movie not about dreaming. That's nearly Inception-level dream business. It's gratuitous and lazy. Dream sequences are some of the laziest forms of exposition - it's a way to cheat out exposition that would be otherwise ridiculous or out of place without breaking your current reality bar. It's tired and it's hackneyed. As is a common theme with these criticisms, the dream sequences in BvS are one of the several contrived methods used to force the characters of Batman and Superman into violent conflict. The writers couldn't devise believable motivations for Batman's irrational hatred of Superman, so they give him scary dreams to push the subject.

The above doesn't tackle my problems with (1) Lois Lane's ridiculous damsel-in-distress character, (2) the run-time, (3) the black-washed color palette, or (4) the titular battle sequence itself. Those may be subjects for another day and another post.

Tailgating

Tailgating represents such an intense level of impatience that one willingly endangers others in an ineffective attempt to eek out an infinitesimal reduction in commute time.

It is a symptom of the greater Shell of Anonymity and the power it bestows. That freedom from possible (or at least probable) reprisal for one's actions results in a significant dehumanization of others. When in vehicles, we behave in such a way that would be abhorrent were we interacting in a more intimate fashion. We cut in line, we berate, we chastise, we endanger others - all as a result of that Shell.

The Shell of Anonymity is likely the cause of many more societal woes - we do not engage with one another on a meaningful level. Most people are simply faces to be mistrusted and maligned in the moment, and dismissed and forgotten in the next.

The practice I have developed in an attempt to counteract this phenomena in myself is to try to add humanity to a stranger's story. Instead of assuming that the person who is speeding is an arrogant jerk worthy of my hatred, I instead assume that the individual is in some manner of emergency - often something amusing and worthy of pity, rather than scorn. For example, maybe the driver is suffering from a bout of terrible gastric distress, and is racing to a restroom!

The key point here is to assume in everyone a level of dignity that you would expect others to grant you. I would want strangers to assume the best of me, and therefore I should assume the best of them. Unsurprisingly, this is quite similar to the classic Golden Rule, which is always a good starting point (emphasis starting point) for morality.

Art and Judgment

A set of my coworkers had a heated debate recently on the merits of EDM (electronic dance music). One of the individuals, who will be known as Alpha, suggested that EDM was bad music and represented a decline in the music genre in general. He went on to suggest that all music not based in actual instrumentation is of lesser value to society than those that involve what he would describe as "actual musicians". 

This discussion intrigued me, as I have no love for EDM or many other modern, popular music genres. However, saying that one does not enjoy a genre of music is understandable, while suggesting that a genre of music holds little or no value to society treads on unstable ground.

This caused me to reflect on my own biases and opinions in regard to other genres. I have frequently suggested that many modern musicians or singers, such as Taylor Swift or Katie Perry, are crass appeals to the masses and represent a stagnation, creatively, in our culture. The longer I let my thoughts dwell on this stance, which mirrored those opinions that I found abhorrent, the more my own biases were revealed. 

Perspective is what I began to gain. I thought of the genres of media in which I am aloof or elitist; particularly film, books, and video games. I consider myself somewhat of a film buff, but I am confident that my opinions and experiences in the medium would be considered pedestrian and crude in comparison to those who have made that world their life's devotion. Similarly, I am a bibliophile, but I have been known to read books that others might consider silly, trite, or lacking in substance. And lastly, in film, I love the action films from 80s and 90s, though these are considered to be silly, crowd-pleasing films with only the faintest veneer of plot or acting.

For music, I'm sure if we sampled any modern music for a patron of the opera from the 18th century, he would find it all crude, crass, and without substance. He would suggest that music itself seems to have gone down the gutter.

Who am I to tell others what can or cannot bring their lives substance? Who am I to striate a genre or medium into arbitrary tiers of cultural relevance? I am in no way experienced in these genres. My perceptions are simply based off of small sample-sizes, samples that are likely not indicative of a subject as a whole. I am an outsider to the culture I am judging. 

The thought that another group's appreciation of a subject I find disdainful somehow contaminates or diminishes my own sub-set of that subject is the same logical structure that results in people believing that allowing homosexuals to marry one another damages the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. I am not suggesting that these two thoughts are related or identical; simply that there is an underlying structure at work that reads similarly.

"Whatever floats your boat" seems to be an apt adage to apply here. Whatever media or experiential intake brings vibrancy, stimulus, and substance to an individual's life need not have a rubric applied to it by others to judge its validity. Its validity is inherent in the experiences and sensations it provides.

Heaven

I recently realized that I have no idea what “heaven” is, according to Christianity. I hear the word mentioned daily, and I meet Christians that seem to know what it is. However, a lot of these Christians haven’t really read the Bible, so I can’t trust their descriptions. So it is to the source itself I go, to the Bible! Using my electronic King James Bible, I did a word search for every instance of the word “heaven”, and collected the best information I could. It took quite a while, as I had to continually filter through every time the Bible says “…and God rained fire down from the heavens”, which isn’t exactly useful for my current endeavor (by the way, it says that line possibly one hundred or more times in the Bible).

Below are some excerpts from the Bible, with my brief commentary. Following the excerpts, I present my interpretation of this information.

Excerpts and Commentary

“…and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.” [Genesis 1:20]

-Birds fly around in heaven. Heaven is mostly synonymous with sky, it seems.

“Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years…” [Genesis 1:14]

-Again, heaven equals sky and space.

“…and the fowl of the heaven…” [Genesis 7:23]

-Heaven seems to be synonymous with “sky” here.

“…and the rain from heaven was restrained…” [Genesis 8:2]

-Heaven seems to be synonymous with “sky” here.

“And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven…” [Genesis 26:4]

-Again, this is more of a generalization about “sky”, as the stars most certainly exist far out into space.

“But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.” [Matthew 6:19]

-There will be “treasures” in heaven, but it is not specific as to what those treasures are. It seems to be mentioned in relationship to or in context with material goods.

“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come.” [Matthew 12:31-12:32]

-Speaking a word against the Holy Ghost denies you access to heaven. Ever. That’s pretty harsh.

“If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven…” [Matthew 19:21]

-Again, more mention of treasure in relation to material goods.

“For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” [Matthew 22:30]

-So people will be like angels in heaven. Also, married couples will not remain married in heaven.

“For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.” [Hebrews 10:34]

-The “better and enduring substance” is most likely something about heaven. Very non-specific.

“Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the what into my barn.” [Matthew 13:24 – 13:30]

-So the wicked people are the “seeds of the devil”. When the time of reaping comes, all the “tares” (aka, sinners), will be gathered up and burned, while the “wheat” (aka, faithful), will be put somewhere safe.

“Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.” [Matthew 13:31-13:32]

-Not sure what to make of this. I’m just confused by it.

“Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.” [Matthew 13:33]

-Um…what?

“He [Jesus] answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked [one]; The enemy that soweth them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” [Matthew 13:37-13:43]

-Same as above – the good will be sheltered, the evil burned.

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.” [Matthew 13:44]

-Another confusing parable about heaven. I’m really not sure what this is supposed to tell us about heaven, apart from the fact that it is valuable.

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: Who, when he had found one pearls of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.” [Matthew 13:45]

-Same as above. We get it. Heaven is valuable.

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” [Matthew 13:47-13:50]

-They are really driving home the fact that the bad people will be cast forth into a fire and burned. They seem to define that scenario more clearly than what happens with the good people.

“Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owend him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owned him an hundred pence: and he lad hands upon him, and took [him] by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.” [Matthew 18:23-18:35]

-Okay, this is a very long parable. The point of it is not really about heaven; it is more about the criteria for getting into heaven. Forgiveness is key. If you don’t forgive every single person of their trespasses, you do not get into heaven.

“Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly ever enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” [Matthew 19:23-19:24]

-Jesus drives home the point about poverty and wealth. Wealth is bad. Give it away, or you won’t get into heaven.

“Any everyone that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.” [Matthew 19:29]

-It looks like material goods forsaken in this life will be returned, a hundredfold, in heaven. Heaven seems to contain material possessions, literally “wealth”.

“The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and [my] fatlings [are] killed, and all things [are] ready: come unto the marriage. But they made light of [it], and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise. And the remnant took his servants, and entreated [them][ spitefully, and slew [them]. But when the king heard [thereof], he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast [him] into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few [are] chosen.” [Matthew 22:2-22:11]

-Again…what? I guess the final line is the whole point of this long-winded parable. Not really seeing the point of it all.

“Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and five [were] foolish. They that [were] foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. But the wise answered, saying, [Not so]; lest there not be enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I saw unto you, I know you not. Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.” [Matthew 25:1-25:13]

-This parable is almost comical. “You never know when Jesus is coming, so be ready, just like those virgins!” It’s an odd way of making a point, and I’m really not sure how effective the point is. Fools don’t get into heaven? Not really sure here.

Conclusion

No where in the Old Testament does it describe heaven as anything but a “sky realm”. It is the place of fire, rain, thunder, lightning, stars, and the sun and moon. The birds are said to fly in heaven. This is a very literal and physical interpretation of heaven. Additionally, it does not describe heaven as a place of “afterlife” in the Old Testament. This seems to be a mostly New Testament idea, of which most discussion takes place in Matthew. The book of Matthew describes in great detail the process by which people will be selected for entering heaven, but it does not really describe what it’s like there. There is a much clearer image of what Hell is like (a furnace of fire), and they make sure to drive that point home frequently.

The following features are the best I could come up with from my admittedly brief research:

1. People become like God’s angels in heaven. Matthew [22:30]

2. You will have tons of treasures, including material wealth, so long as you gave up material wealth in life.[Matthew [19:21] and [19:29]

3. People have everlasting life in heaven. Matthew [19:29]

4. Marriages in life are not binding in heaven, and no one can marry or be married in heaven. Matthew [22:30]

5. There will be very few people in heaven, as the criteria is extremely strict. If you ever blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, you have committed an unforgivable sin, and you will not get into heaven. EVER. Matthew [12:31-12:32] and [22:11]

6. Heaven is the source of: rain, thunder, lightning, and contains the stars, the moon, and the sun. Genesis [1:14], [8:2], and [26:4]

7. Birds fly around in heaven, which leads me to believe it is not only part of this realm (not another dimension or something), but that it is literally right above us. Genesis [7:23]

That is not the clearest of images. I’m not sure where many Christians get their conceptions of heaven, but what I’ve posted above is what the Bible itself says, most of the time right from Jesus’ own mouth. On the other hand, the Bible is quite clear as to who gets into heaven, and I’ve never met anyone, let alone a Christian, that meets the criteria set forth in the Good Book.

Possibility

Is anything possible? Yes. Does that matter? Not especially. Is it possible that not anything is possible? I suppose so, but that seems even less useful. Below, I discuss the process of “doubting” and “infinite possibilities”, as they relate to the practice of Philosophy.

Before I get into the discussion proper, I will provide a brief personal anecdote, one that my best friend Daniel can only truly verify, for he was there with me on the “front lines”, and witnessed my battle and eventual fall. Many years ago, I was deep into the process of “doubting”. I questioned and questioned. I dug deeper and deeper. I peeled away at layer after layer. When I got down to the apparent “bottom”, I didn’t like what I found. I found nothing. At my core, I felt like I was not a “real person”, but only a person who “acts” like one. I thought that I only behaved as I thought I should behave, and that my entire life was arbitrary. I took the process to the literal extreme – I truly and genuinely doubted my own existence. Not on an academic level, but on an actual level. It broke me. I made several poor decisions following this – decisions I am not proud of. I won’t get in to them at this time. It took me some time to rebuild, to piece back together my reality, but eventually I became whole again. I am stronger now. I am actual. I tell this story to fully articulate my experience and understanding of the subject of “doubt” and “possibility”. Having said that, we may begin:

Could an umbrella be a galaxy? Absolutely. What does the “best evidence presently available” suggest? That it is not. Could be, though? Again, assuredly so.

Accepting the possibility of alternatives does not preclude one from acting on the “best evidence presently available”. Placing too much weight into alternative possibilities is not only non-productive, but counter to the very process of Philosophy.

No matter the argument, no matter the claim, one can always say “Well, it is possible that this is all an illusion!” This is, of course, true. One could make that rebuttal to any claim, to any statement. This is not, however, good Philosophy.

When does the questioning stop? It will never, until the very fundamental edifice of knowledge is eroded away. What good has that done, Philosophically speaking? We have gained no insight, no further understanding of a matter. We have simply dismissed it, cast it aside as so much possibility. One cannot build an understanding of reality on such a premise. One cannot believe anything, trust anything, or enjoy anything. It has gained us nothing. What we have gained is doubt – doubt we did not need. It is, to put succinctly, a non-starter.

Any serious Philosopher must concede the point that yes, the umbrella could be a galaxy. Are we supposed to leave it at that? Are we supposed to throw up our hands in defeat and head forward, trusting in nothing due to such possibilities? I would say no, we shouldn’t.

This is where the “best evidence presently available” comes in. Is the coffee mug I hold in my hand really there, or is it just an illusion? Well, it is certainly possible that I’m in a tank as per the Matrix films, but is that what the best evidence presently available suggests? The immediate, tactile sensation, the odor of the mug, the fact that I see it – this is all data. Of course, my senses may lie to me. However, once I allow that fact to undermine all sensory data, my life becomes nothing – a false reality not worth living.

The best evidence presently available suggests that yes, there are objects that take up physical space, and yes, I am alive, and yes, my senses are as tuned into reality as is possible by our current bodies and technology. This data suggests to me that, yes, the mug is just a mug, and yes, the umbrella is just an umbrella.

Is it a fact that the umbrella is what I think it is? It’s as close as I can get. That “as close as I can get” puts air planes in the sky, people into space, re-attaches severed limbs, and other feats I can only barely comprehend. It is that “best evidence presently available” that not only builds human society, but allows us to exist within our reality.

The best evidence presently available is not perfect. Nor will it ever be. It will always grow, iterate, and edit itself, and our understanding of reality along with it. At every step along the path, all we can do is work under the assumptions currently available to us. We accept that the path continues on, in some unknown direction and toward new possibilities – but what we have before us is all we have. We will never gain perfect understanding (although, I suppose I should concede the possibility of that, too), but the quest toward it is no less valiant. However, we can’t wait for that (possibly) unobtainable end point, that wonderful conclusion. We have to use what we have.

Is it the job, or duty, of a Philosopher to negate all theory, to simply “question something to death”? Or is it the job of the Philosopher, going off the best available evidence (and possibly contributing to the best available evidence), to help us understand our world, the people in it, and how to interact them?

It is not the duty of the Philosopher to simply cast doubt – it’s the duty of the Philosopher to understand. So one must ask: does making the admission that the umbrella could be a galaxy, or an illusion, assist in our understanding of the umbrella, or any theory stemmed there from? I would say no, it does not.

I will close with a reference to a big name in Philosophy: Descartes. King of Doubters, Descartes sought to tear down the reality around him as he sat in his comfortable chair by the fire. He peeled away, layer after layer, until he could peel no more. That peeling, that doubting was just the beginning. What Descartes did after that was build. Doubting is only the first, and frankly, easiest step. It is the building where the action happens. That’s where doubt stops, and Philosophy begins.

Fun Quotations

Here are some fun quotes from some very smart and very famous people regarding religion! Hope you folks get a chuckle out of them, as I did.

Side note: This blog has been neglected by me over the last two months. I have been busily working on a different project, namely "Clockworld", and it will likely take up most of my writing time for the indeterminate future. I hope to return to working on my philosophy after the completion of Clockworld.

Gene Roddenberry - "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."

Michael Shermer - "In the past 10,000 years, humans have devised roughly 100,000 religions based on roughly 2,500 gods. So the only difference between myself and the believers is that I am skeptical of 2,500 gods whereas they are skeptical of 2,499 gods. We're only one God away from total agreement.

Jonathan Swift - "We have just enough religion to make us hate but not enough religion to make us love one another."

Mark Twain - "Our Bible reveals to us the character of our god with minute and remorseless exactness... It is perhaps the most damnatory biography that exists in print anywhere. It makes Nero an angel of light … by contrast."

Napoleon Bonaparte - "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."

Robert G. Ingersoll - " Hands that help are far better then lips that pray."

Magellan - "The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church."

President George Washington - "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." (Treaty Of Tripoli, 1796)

President Thomas Jefferson - "History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."

“An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.” –Benjamin Franklin

“Anger is never without a reason, but seldom with a good one.” –Benjamin Franklin

“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” –Benjamin Franklin

“Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing.” –Benjamin Franklin

“Games lubricate the body and the mind.” –Benjamin Franklin

“He that displays too often his wife and his wallet is in danger of having both of them borrowed.” –Benjamin Franklin

“He that lives upon hope will die fasting.” –Benjamin Franklin

“If a man empties his purse into his head, no one can take it from him.” –Benjamin Franklin

“Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.” –Benjamin Franklin

“The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is a knowledge of our own ignorance.” –Benjamin Franklin

“The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason.” –Benjamin Franklin

“To follow by Faith alone is to follow blindly.” –Benjamin Franklin

“When you’re finished changing, you’re finished.” –Benjamin Franklin

An Infant's Rights

Part 1

In speaking with Maribel Navarro on the topic of fetus’ rights, she pointed out some very interesting issues. The following is the result of our conversation, coalesced and honed into a more precise discourse.

Many people are anti-abortion. Such people believe that the fetus is a living thing, and should have protection under our laws. This child-to-be, this future person, should have its liberties and life protected. These are compelling arguments. The protection of sentient life is a noble endeavor, indeed. I am not here to argue against this position. This is not an essay on the merits or demerits of abortion. What this essay is about will be revealed shortly.

Let’s take a look at some anti-abortion precepts.

1. An unborn child is a person, despite still being in the womb.

2. As a person, an unborn child has rights.

3. An unborn child, as a person, should have their life and body protected against harm.

4. A parent does not have the right to harm their child, even if that child is unborn.

If you read numbers 1-4 above and agreed with them wholeheartedly, I have a question for you: Are you a supporter of child circumcision*? If so, how can you reconcile those two beliefs? How can you believe that a child, even an unborn one, has an amount of autonomy and protection under the law and yet support a practice where parents may permanently alter their child’s genitals without the child’s consent?

*Note: I am referring to any circumcision practice in this essay, whether male or female, sanctioned or banned. Any permanent altering of an individual’s genitals falls into this description.

Hypothetically speaking, if I had a child, do I have the right to surgically and permanently remove their eyebrows shortly after birth? They don’t really need them, and they won’t suffer any serious medical issues if they don’t’ have eyebrows. I think my child’s ears are too wide, so I’d like to give the child a permanent alteration to its ears after birth, shaping them how I want them.

If, at the age of 5, my parents held me down and shaved off all the hair on my body while I screamed and cried, they’d be locked away. If my parents forced me, at the age of 3, to have reconstructive surgery performed on my nose because they didn’t like it’s shape, it would be criminal.

To be frank, I don’t wish to tackle the issues of circumcision at this time. I simply wish to point out an amount of hypocrisy and contradiction I have encountered in my investigations. How can someone say “God wants me to protect the life of unborn children” and then turn around and also claim that “God wants me to mutilate all male children at birth”. Does not compute!

Part 2

I wrote Part 1 about one week ago. Since that time, I have done some further reflection on the subject of circumcision. I have read some articles and heard some discourse claiming that the practice of circumcision is sacred, and to outlaw its practice would be an attack on religion (specifically, the Abrahamic religions, namely Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). This claim is inappropriate. When discussing public policy, in a nation where it is most specifically laid out that the government shall not endorse any one faith, it is not relevant that a particular religion holds a specific practice sacred. I will elaborate on this further.

In the eyes of the government, all faiths must be considered equally false. This is not to say that they are false, but that the government must take a completely neutral approach to them all, otherwise favoritism and bias emerge. It is not possible to assume that all faiths are true, so we must assume that they are all false, at least as it comes to public policy. In this manner, equality can be maintained – no one faith is considered any better than another, and the issues of religious doctrine becomes irrelevant. Again, this is not to say that the faiths are false, just that we must assume so as far as governmental issues are concerned. People have the right to believe said beliefs, that is for certain, but public policy cannot revolve around the myriad and incongruent beliefs of the faithful. It doesn’t matter that Fundamentalist Mormons believe that polygamy is sacred, we have deemed the practice itself unlawful.

The practice of circumcision, as we practice it today in the United States, has its roots in the Old Testament. It signifies a covenant made between Abraham and his god. Why the God of Abraham dislikes foreskin so much is beyond me, but that is a topic for another day. My point here being that this practice is religious first and medical second. There are some medical benefits to circumcision, and some medical drawbacks. It is important to note that this is an elective surgery, in that it is in no manner life saving or life improving, at least not in any significant way. If we divorce ourselves from the belief that mutilating infants’ genitals pleases an ancient Semitic sky deity, then maybe we can see what this practice really is: barbarism.

Side Rant: The God of Abraham demands we do a lot of things. A brief flip through my copy of the King James Bible also informs me that we should: Hunt witches, stone apostates to death, beat and kill our children, make blood sacrifices, and murder homosexuals. The mutilation of infant genitalia seems to fit right in among those directives.