An entity that carries information, particularly about something beyond itself. Semiotics, or the theory of signs, includes three areas of study: (1) syntax looks at the relations signs have to each other; (2) semantics looks at the relations between signs and what signs signify; and (3) pragmatics looks at the ways signs are used. In Paul Tillich’s theology a sign is distinguished (somewhat idiosyncratically) from a symbol in that a symbol is said to participate in or have some kind of internal relation to that which it signifies.

Evans, C. S. (2002). Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (pp. 106–107). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Veracity Hill

Ep 169: Kurt’s Research Update
Have you been curious about Kurt’s doctoral research? Tune in as he talks about the so-called Semi-Pelagians.

Reasonable Faith

Joshua Harris and Purity Culture

Dr. Craig comments on the controversy surrounding popular author Joshua Harris.

Trinity Radio

A Christian Answer to UFOs!

Two Christians weigh in on the nature of UFOs. One of them in response to an atheist during a live public debate.

Logos

• Free Logos software and book of the month

Kindle deals

• Called for a Purpose: Daily Devotions to Help You Pursue God’s Plan by Tony Evans $.99
• Do Angels Really Have Wings?: … And 199 Other Questions About God, Life, and the Bible by Today in the Word $2.99
• Meet Generation Z: Understanding and Reaching the New Post-Christian World James Emery White $1.99
• Restoring All Things: God’s Audacious Plan to Change the World through Everyday People John Stonestreet $1.99
• The Case for the Psalms: Why They Are Essential by N.T. Wright $1.99

Weekly links

• Dr. William Lane Craig Explains the Atonement and Atonement Theories by Capturing Christianity (video)
• Abraham’s Day: Archaeological & Historical Evidence for the Father of Faith by epicarchaeology.org
• Darwin Devolves — Evidence Keeps Rolling In by evolutionnews.org
• The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism by Center for Philosophy of Religion (video)
• 3 Facts in Genesis 1 which confirms the Biblical Creation by samzlogic.wordpress.com
• Long Life Spans: “Adam Lived 930 Years and Then He Died” by reasons.org
• The Heavens Declare the Glory of God by roblundbergapologetics.com
• Solas – PEP/Talk: the Persuasive Evangelism Podcast: pilot episode
• 21 Greatest Old Testament Biblical Archaeology Discoveries Ever by welcometotruth.com
• Can All Religions Be True? by apologeticsguy.com

One of the key aspects of the clown prince of crime was that we never really knew his backstory, which is why I was very hesitant (as I am sure others also were) to here we would be getting an origin story on a character that is possibly the greatest comic book villain ever (certainly the most popular).

In a sort of preparation for Director Todd Phillips’ (known for R rated comedies like 2009’s The Hangover) new Joker film,  I decided to revisit two films: one that was an inspiration to this current film and another that was one of the very first to galvanize the character in general. The former was Martin Scoresese’s 1976 classic Taxi Driver, about a man (played by Robert De Niro) who is basically shunned by the public despite wanting to “clean up” the garbage of the city. The second (and lesser known) was the 1928 silent german film The Man who Laughs, a story (from Victor Hugo) that tells about a man who has been surgically disfigured to always be smiling (I recently posted a picture of Conrad Veidt, the actor in the titular role,  to social media, and I still got friends saying that it is eerie, even over nine decades later).

The film opens in Gotham, where we meet a struggling Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix). He works on the side as a clown, as he keeps his dream somewhat alive of trying to be a stand up comic, like his hero, talk show host Murray Franklin (Robert De Niro). Arthur is indeed a kind man, but troubled to the core. We learn right away he has a certain disease (somewhat like tourettes) where he can’t stop laughing. It is clear that this laughter is desperately trying to hide unimaginable pain. Despite some nice co-workers, the only guiding light in Arthur’s life is his mother Penny (Frances Conroy), and the potential to go talk more with his crush in the apartment down the hall, single mother Sophie (Zazie Beetz).

The plot of the film is light and easy to follow, as Penny is trying to get Arthur to help her get a hold of her former boss, Thomas Wayne (Brett Cullen), who is currently running for Gotham Mayor. Yet the film is not about plot so much as it is about witnessing an tragic life event. In this case, it is the clear descent into madness that Arthur undertakes. The film will require more than one viewing, but the first viewing will undoubtedly be (as it was in my case) focused on one thing: the performance by Joaquin Phoenix.

The role of the Joker has been played by many actors over the years: Cesar Romero, Jack Nicholson, Mark Hamill (voice only, but still brilliant), Heath Ledger, and Jared Leto. Of those, Ledger is the one who has probably had the most impact (he won a posthumous Oscar for the role he had in 2008’s The Dark Knight). It is a role that demands to have an actor who is has the ability to be give a chameleon effect in their approach, and make us realize that we are not watching an actor (think of actors like Gary Oldman, Christian Bale, and my personal favorite, Daniel Day-Lewis).

Phoenix also qualifies, and is simply astounding in this film. He even is given more work to do than Ledger had. Ledger’s Joker was already past the point of redemption, and was a sociopathic madman. When we first meet Phoenix, we can’t help but sympathize with him at times, as someone who has been shunned from society and left to the wolves.

Parents, this is not a movie for kids. While there is mild nudity (the joke book that Arthur keeps is filled with some cut outs of naked models from magazines), it more than makes up for it in the swearing and violence. That is not to mention the exuberant dark tone the film even after you left the theater. High School and above.

There is no clear cut answer to what type of mental issues that Fleck/Joker has (though it is safe to say there are many). The real question is how we react to someone with these issues. I am not trying to excuse the actions he exhibits, but trying to understand why he does them in the first place. At the core of it all, Arthur just wants some guidance, a soul to connect with (Sophie is one example). When we push those who are “different” from us away, it damages them in ways we can’t imagine.

Most of the scenes do work, but some that fail (not sure we needed another rendition of the outcome of Bruce’s parents). One that caught me off guard was Show MINOR SPOILERwhen Fleck goes to try and talk to Thomas Wayne, and encounters his young son Bruce (Dante Pereira-Olson). The jury is still out for me on this scene, but I would be lying if I said it did not give me goosebumps. I am sure there are a lot of people who will find this movie to speak out to them in some political way, but I was not looking at that. I was simply watching what happens when we forget to love our neighbor.

That, and one of the year’s best performances.

Send in the awards.

Overall: 4.5/5

A trait regarded as one of the chief virtues by contemporary Western societies. Tolerance is often confused with a relativistic refusal to criticize another view or make any substantive value judgments. (See relativism.) However, logically, tolerance is consistent with an attitude of strong disagreement and even disapproval. There are many views I may tolerate (in the sense that I think people should be allowed to hold them) that I think are mistaken or harmful. Tolerance is also sometimes confused with respect, but the two attitudes are distinct. I may respect a committed political rebel even though I do not tolerate his behavior. I may tolerate people whom I do not respect at all.

Evans, C. S. (2002). Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (p. 116). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Veracity Hill

Episode 168: Narrative Apologetics
What value is there in sharing stories? In this episode Kurt speaks with the prolific author and well-respected theologian Alister McGrath on his new book, “Narrative Apologetics.”

Risen Jesus

Resurrection of Jesus: The Evidence on a Napkin

A compelling case for Jesus’s resurrection is so simple that it can be presented on a napkin! In this 10-minute video, Dr. Mike Licona shows how with the use of a logic tree.

Reasonable Faith

A Conversation with Sir Roger Penrose

Dr. Craig talks about his recent one-on-one conversations with the renowned mathematician and physicist.

Logos

• free logos software and book of the month

Kindle Deals

• Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend by Ravi Zacharias- $2.99
• The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel- $2.99
• What’s So Amazing About Grace? by Philip Yancey- $1.99
• Where I Am: Heaven, Eternity, and Our Life Beyond by Billy Graham- $0.99
• How to Be A Christian in A Brave New World by Joni Eareckson Tada- $0.99

Weekly Links

• Let’s Call a Truce on the Age of the Universe by The Stream
• Christians, Stop saying “We Don’t Ask Questions Here”- It’s Unbiblical!- by The Stream
• 7 Traits of Christianity’s Greatest Thinkers (podcast) by reasons.org
• Even science needs more than science to work properly by crossexamined.org
• Is it reasonable to believe in angelic beings? by coldcasechristianity.com
• 3 Tips to having Better Conversations When You Disagree by rzim.org
• Were 1 and 2 Timothy really forged in Paul’s name? by isjesusalive.com
• Deconstruction and Reconstruction- Walking Through Doubt (podcast) by the Alisa Childers Podcast

It is more than likely true that other Hollywood stars had problems behind the scenes before the arrival of Judy Garland, but few would become as well known. As a young teen, Francis Gumm became Judy Garland, and the ruby red-slippered star of The Wizard of Oz had a tumultuous and wild start, to say the least. At MGM (where she stayed until 1950), she was looked over by the tyrannical Louis B. Mayer (who referred to the 4 ft 11 Garland as his “little hunchback”).

After the death of her father, the family was run with an iron fist by Judy’s domineering mother. The pills that Garland had to take at a young age started her down the path of drug addiction, and her cries for help to her mother fell on deaf ears, making it a surprise to no one that she would later refer to her mother as the “real wicked witch of the west.” Future husbands (she would marry five times) only added to a crushed soul in desperate need of care and understanding.

But hot dog, could she carry a tune.

Based off of the stage play “End of the Rainbow” by Peter Quilter, Judy is set in 1968 (a year before her death). With her children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey, Judy (Renee Zellweger) realizes that she is out of money. Learning from her own mother, Judy makes sure to be the best mother she can, but still must drop the kids off at their father’s (her fourth husband) house, producer Sydney Luft (Rufus Sewell).

 The best that Judy can hope for money wise is to perform live in concerts in London. There is also a series of flashbacks to childhood (where she is portrayed by Darci Shaw), where she is under the thumb of Louis B. Mayer and her mother Ethel (Natasha Powell).

It is no secret that music biopics are about as “Oscar Baity” as they get, and Judy is no exception. The main reason most people would see the film is to see the Zellweger performance, and it is truly the only reason to see the movie. She is indeed wonderful, but not to the degree I was hoping. At times, it did seem like she was just screaming “Gimme an Oscar!”, but there were some moments that seemed like I was looking at the real Garland. She does have many of the physical mannerisms down (even seeming like she is under five foot).

I don’t think any of it is Zellweger’s fault, for she truly does a great job. The problem is that Judy Garland was a once in a lifetime performer. Zellweger is indeed a good vocal performer (as she showed us in 2002’s Chicago, a movie that I saw multiple times in the theater). Nevertheless, being compared to Judy Garland in the singing arena is downright unfair for anyone. As I am typing this, I am listening to both sing one of Garland’s most well known tune, The Man that Got Away (The song came from Garland’s 1954 film A Star is Born, the first remake of the film, for which Garland was nominated for an Oscar but lost to Grace Kelly for a movie called The Country Girl. I have yet to see Kelly in this film, but I am still confounded as to how Garland lost, for she gives one of the best powerhouse performances in history.)

Zellweger (who never sings this song in the movie) does a fine job, but in her own right. There was a uniqueness to Garland, just something that cannot be described, that cannot be replicated. Still, kudos to Zellweger for the effort.

Parents, the film is rated PG-13, mainly for thematic material and language (maybe one F bomb). It is a rather soft PG-13.

In a way, there were two paths that Garland paved the way for others to follow. One would be that of the troubled child star (undoubtedly one no one wants to follow). At the same time, the second path she paved was that of a vocal performer at the top of her game. Those that have followed in her footsteps on this second path would include Julie Andrews, Barbara Streisand, Liza Minelli (Garland’s daughter), Beyonce, and Lady Gaga. In the conversation of 20^th century performers, she ranks right up there with Sinatra (who is given a humorous shout out in the movie).

It should come as very little surprise what song is used to end the film, (“Over the Rainbow”) being that it is Garland’s claim to fame (and possibly the most popular song in film history.) Despite Zellweger’s rendition, I stand firmly in saying it is a song that loses half of its effect if it is not song by Judy Garland.

It is her rainbow of a voice, and it will never be duplicated.

Overall: 3.5/5

Now that you have a simple way of presenting Pascal’s Wager in conversation, you need to be prepared for objections. I’m going to offer what I think are the top ten. They fall into three general categories though. I’ve deliberately made these responses brief so that they are easy to remember for use in conversation. Check out my YouTube channel here and here, as well as the recommended reading for those who want more depth. I’ve drawn heavily on the work of Dr. Michael Rota and Dr. Liz Jackson.

Psychological/Moral Objections

• Objection 1: You can’t force yourself to believe in God, so you can’t choose to wager.
  • Response: This is a straw man because the Wager doesn’t ask you to believe in God. It asks you to commit. Commitment doesn’t necessarily include belief, but it does include actions that you can do while remaining honest. Actions like going to church, forming friendships with religious believers, reading and studying sacred scripture and praying. Prayers can be conditional to remain honest though, like “God if you are there, thank you for this and please help me with that…”

• Objection 2: The Wager is immoral because it is taken for selfish reasons and tries to use God as a means to an end, but that won’t fool God.
  • Response: First, you don’t have to take the Wager for selfish reasons. You can take it to bring joy to God, help others in the most important way possible, or even because it is a potential moral duty. Second, even if you commit for selfish reasons, that can be an initial step on a journey to real faith and a purer love of God.

• Objection 3: It’s wrong to believe on the basis of expected value instead of on the basis of evidence. You risk becoming ensnared in an illusion.
  • Response: If the evidence is roughly balanced, it makes sense to pick a strategy on the basis of expected value. Just reflect on the coin flipping analogy. Also, there are risks of self deception both ways- commitment or non-commitment. No matter which way you choose to live your life, non-rational factors do influence what you believe to be true.

Pragmatic Objections

• Objection 4: The cost of commitment is too high. Think about the consequences of mistaken religious commitment for a martyr.
  • Response: The Wager should be taken on a case by case basis. Perhaps it applies to some but not all. Your job is to figure out if it applies to you though. As you consider the possible negatives in your own case, try to correct for your natural human bias to overestimate the impact of difficulties. And remember, it’s rational to face a high risk of great cost to avoid an even higher risk of greater cost.

• Objection 5: If you choose the wrong god, then every time you go to church you’re making the real God madder and madder. So maybe it’s better to remain neutral.
  • Response: Many religions prescribe the same kinds of actions- helping the poor, tithing, prayer, etc. So even if you practice the wrong religion you’re still taking a lot of actions prescribed by the real religion. Imagine you have two children and you invite both of them to your 50th wedding anniversary. One child comes with a gift he thought you’d like but was mistaken. The other ignores your invitation and says you don’t exist. Which is the better child?

• Objection 6: You wouldn’t turn your wallet over to a mugger who promised to return it with ten times the original amount, so you shouldn’t take The Wager.
  • Response: Your credence in the mugger’s claim should be low, which isn’t analogous to the version of the Wager I offer where the odds are 50/50 like a coin flip.  If he raises the amount he promises to return then your credence gets even lower. There are structurally similar cases to the mugger’s offer though that many would accept, like paying a large amount of money for a risky new medication to treat a life-threatening illness. So the person raising this objection would need to offer an additional argument showing why The Wager is more like the mugging case than the medicine example.

• Objection 7: There are many worldviews with infinite rewards and consequences besides Christianity, and the Wager doesn’t give us any way to choose between them, so it is useless.
  • Response: This is often considered the strongest objection to the Wager. If infinities are being considered though, virtually any religious commitment is equally bad or more advantageous than no commitment at all, so one should practice a religion. “But which one?” the objector asks. “The Wager doesn’t show us.” Well, actually the Wager tells us to practice the one that seems most likely to be true. To figure that out, you need to look at the evidence.

• Objection 8: Any action you take has some chance, no matter how small, of leading to belief in God, whether that is prayer, eating a burger or tying your shoes. When you multiply each probability by the reward though (infinity), it turns out all strategies have an equal expected value- infinity. So then why go to church, pray, read scripture, etc.?
  • Response: It is widely accepted among mathematicians that not all infinities are equal and commonsensical thought experiments reveal this. Imagine you had two eternal “heavens” before you to choose from, both offering the same reward, but neither guarantees you will get the reward. In the first heaven, the probability of you getting the reward is 0.000001. In the second heaven, the probability of you getting the reward is 0.999999. Clearly you should prefer the second to the first, even though both promise an infinite reward. One ought to prefer the worldview with greater credence, other things being equal.

Biblical/Theological Objections

• Objection 9: Paul says, “If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor 15:19).  This goes directly against a crucial premise in the Wager, that living a devout Christian life is beneficial even if Naturalism is true.
  • Response: Understanding the context of this passage answers this objection. First, the apostles and recipients of this letter to Corinth faced severe this-worldly costs, unlike the average person living today in a country with religious freedom. It doesn’t follow that since it was bad for them in their context, it is bad for us in our context. Second, Paul’s thought is not, “if naturalism is true then Christians are of all human beings most to be pitied.” Rather it’s more like “if we are wrong in our believing/preaching then we are committing blasphemy against God, putting us outside the true religion and suffering much in this life, which is a lose-lose.” He didn’t even speak to the possibility of no religion being true.

• Objection 10: Salvation is up to God’s will alone. So a person’s choices/actions can’t have an effect on whether he or she attains salvation. But the Wager says our choices/actions can increase our chances of attaining salvation.
  • Response: Those who hold to monergism can still think it’s within the human being’s power to resist God’s saving grace. If that’s the case our choices/actions can have an effect on whether or not we attain salvation. But even if you think grace is irresistible, you can still say that ones choice to commit to God in the way the Wager recommends is a result of God’s grace, just as a Calvinist would say that ones choice to have faith in God is a result of his grace.

Recommended Reading

Michael Rota, Taking Pascal’s Wager pgs. 52-79.

Elizabeth Jackson & Andrew Rogers, Salvaging Pascal’s Wager. Pgs. 59-84.

Veracity Hill

Ep 167: The Reluctant Witness
Do you have fears about sharing your faith with others? Worry no longer! In this episode, Kurt speaks with Don Everts on discovering the delight of spiritual conversations.

Risen Jesus

S3E8 – Season Finale

Dr. Mike Licona and Kurt Jaros review the topics covered in season 3 as well as come of Mike’s personal confessions and reflections after finishing his book, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.”

Trinity Radio

Richard Dawkins & Matt Dillahunty: AI, Divine Diddenness, Are We Wired to Believe

Are you wired to believe in God? Can religious experience be explained naturalistically? Will robotic AI ever develop their own religions?