An update and the latest scripts

Hi, everyone! In case you haven't seen it on my YouTube, David Lynch Month begins in May. I will be tackling Blue Velvet, The Elephant Man, Wild at Heart, Inland Empire and Dune. 

Without further ado, here are the scripts to recent episode:

THE WAILING

 AUDIO 1
 How we define “good” and “evil” are often byproducts of a larger view of the universe. The concept of evil itself is controversial. What do you mean by...evil? When someone says someone else is evil, is that a declaration that said person is imbued in a quantifiable way with some essence of wrongness? “Evil” is not simply an adjective. In a philosophical and metaphysical sense, “evil” is a supernatural force rather than a descriptor of someone or something – meaning that someone or something that does possesses negative attributes that would regard that person or thing could be insulted as evil but rather  “Evil” as a noun, not an adjective. “Evil” as a substance or a representative.
 This is the scenario that protagonist Jon-goo faces in The Wailing, a 2016 Korean horror film that presupposes good and evil as definable and assumes moral absolutes. The film follows Jon-goo, a police officer who investigates a series of deaths in his village. He encounters good spirits and evil spirits and must determine which is which in order to save his daughter and his village in general from the wrath of a dark spirit or demon that has been tormenting his home and murdering its citizens. Over the course of the narrative, he mistakes several positive actions from the good ghost as evidence of the evil ghost. Understanding the film from the perspective of a western audience presents a few challenges because it assumes the audience is already aware of certain cultural standards in South Korea, so I will try to summarize the events with some regional knowledge to help.
 AUDIO 2
 The film assumes a rudimentary knowledge of Korean Shamanism – also called [use text] Muism and a few others but not always in completely interchangeable ways. Within Korean Shamanism, the shaman or shaman-priest or Mu can connect human beings with ghosts by using their body as a medium. A Mu can become possessed by an evil ghost, as is the case in The Wailing. Although we see the events of the film through the eyes of Jon-goo and witness his moral agency, the battle is between the guardian ghost who inhabits Moo-myeong in the physical world and an evil ghost who inhabits a mu named Il-gwang and a Japanese Man. While controlled and possessed by the evil ghost, Il-gwang and the Japanese Man make sacrifices, murdering the townspeople. We are given some foreshadowing to this as the Japanese Man is seen fishing at the start of the film, and later on, a character says that the evil ghost is simply throwing out his fishing line and seeing who bites.
 Jong-goo's daughter, Hyo-jin, is believed to be targeted by the evil ghost, so her family has Il-gwang perform an exorcism – called a gut – to save her, but this is actually a curse. Moo-myeong, the guardian ghost, puts a crow in a jar near Jon-goo's home to create a protection spell for Hyo-jin, but Il-gwang, still mistakenly believed to be on the side of good, destroys the jar. We, the audience, are supposed to be as confused about what is good and what is evil as Jon-goo is throughout the film. When Jon-goo suspects the Japanese Man, he tries to kill him, but this SIN means that Moo-myeong, a good ghost, is not able to protect his family anymore. In the end, Jon-goo is manipulated, cannot tell that Moo-myeong is the guardian ghost and not the evil ghost, and everyone suffers for it.
 [TRANSITION] [MUSIC CUE: ]
 AUDIO 3
 So, in The Wailing, is Jon-goo having trouble determining what is absolutely good and absolutely evil or is he faced with morally gray situations in a universe without the existence of good or evil? To answer that, we need to talk about Jon-goo as a moral agent. Choosing between right and wrong is called “Moral Agency” and its actors as moral agents: rational beings who can reason and form judgments. At a glance, it might seem like an Enlightenment Era term, but moral agency among philosophers and religious figures has actually existed for thousands of years. It simply was not always the prevailing worldview. In more distant Antiquity, there was an idea among varying polytheistic and animistic cultures that there existed a realm of being prior to the gods and above them, upon which they depend — something which modern philosopher Yehezekel Kaufman called The Metadivine Realm, a catch-all phrase he applied to various pagan, polytheistic, animistic or magic-based beliefs.    
 The deity or the deities emerge from there and are therefore subject to its laws. It may be water. It may be darkness. It might be spirit. In Ancient Greek polytheism, it was fate. Human beings were believed to be subject to the decrees of fate just the same as the gods were subject to fate. Ancient philosophy and views of the universe limited the gods. Evil was a metaphysical reality, the same as good, the same as air or water. It was simply built into the structure of the universe. That's just the way the universe was made. The primordial material from The Metadivine Realm spawned all that was good and bad. The gods were not interested in human salvation from the capricious forces of the world because they were trying to save themselves. The good gods were attacked by the evil gods. The powers and decrees of The Metadivine Realm were harming them as much as anybody else. They couldn't be worried about humans; they were too busy being worried about themselves. The universe was believed to be “amoral” – not immoral, which is different and negative, but amoral – meaning morally neutral.    
  AUDIO 4  
  The monotheistic view espoused by certain Christian characters in the film is comparatively a radically new idea of a god who is himself the source of all being and not subject to some metadivine realm because he did not emerge from a preexisting world and therefore he is free of all of the limitations  and can be seen as a God whose will is absolute and sovereign. Believers in a Moral Universe propose that if God created the universe, and God is the progenitor of morality, then the universe, too, is moral. In this view, the universe is concerned with human salvation and encourages moral agency within humans. I've discussed secular morality in a morally neutral universe in other episodes, but as this film concerns itself heavily with moral agency related to spirituality, this is the focus today. So, from a spiritual or supernatural perspective, a moral universe is inherently good or ordered by a higher power, an amoral universe is morally neutral or unordered, but both contain absolute good and evil from their differing sources.     
  Jon-goo is our moral agent in the film. His moral decisions affect the flow of the story and the outcome. As a police officer, he is concerned with secular justice, but he is pulled in different directions – particularly those outside of the law – to make moral conclusions about good and evil. In The Wailing, much like in the practices of many faiths concerned with a Moral Universe, good and evil exist – they are quantifiable and explainable. Jon-goo's inability to make the appropriate decisions about good and evil is not commentary on the non-existence of good and evil. The film asserts such things exist. It is also not commentary on moral ambiguity, the idea that everything is a shade of gray. No, in The Wailing, morality is cleanly divided among the good and evil, BUT – the film suggests – even though such things are real, they are not always easy for human beings to differentiate. They are absolute but challenging to see clearly.    
  [TRANSITION]  [MUSIC CUE: ]  
  AUDIO 5  
 In South Korea, Christianity is actually very popular. Roughly 30% of the country adheres to some form of Catholic or Protestant denomination of Christianity. In the village in The Wailing, Christianity and Korean Shamanism exist side by side. Magic, in antiquity, was seen as tapping into the primordial essence of the universe – Kaufman's metadivine realm. The reason magic is frowned-upon by those who believe in a moral universe created by God and not a metadivine realm is because magic is seen as tapping into something that should not exist. Conducting magic, therefore, is blasphemy to some, because it declares that something exists outside of the will of God and implies the existence of a metadivine realm, and if said realm exists, then God came from it rather than the conception that he has always existed.    
 Magic is seen as sin or rebellion against God because, if it exists, it is predicated on the notion of God having limited power. In the film, the concept of sin is not as, well, western. Korean Shamanism is shown as a cultural norm. Part of this indigenous religious practice is the reverence of ancestors – the family unit being spiritually tied together. So, in the film, when Jon-goo commits a sin, and his daughter suffers for it because the guardian ghost no longer has as much power to help her, one might think that unfair to the daughter, but it actually ties itself into Korean Shamanism well. The Wailing shows a kind of amalgam of the Christian concept of morality and the shamanistic conception, which is not surprising. Many Christian churches in Korea make use of practices rooted in shamanism.    
  AUDIO 6  
  The movie begins with a Biblical quote that connects the Gospel of Luke – verses about not knowing whether the risen Christ is living or dead -- with the shamanistic events of the film. The guardian ghost is introduced to us throwing stones – a Biblical reference to the fact that she is without sin. The priest-in-training refers to the Japanese Man as the Devil even though the possession is of magical origin, something that should not exist within a moral universe worldview with no conception of a metadivine realm. Going back to moral agency, I find that while the film is thematically showing us how difficult it is to recognize good from evil, Jon-goo eventually fails when he does not base his decisions completely on what he believes is morally right, and this is not just in reference to his aforementioned sin. At the end of the film, Jon-goo, having seen what his corrupted daughter has done due to the evil ghost, says that he will take care of everything.    
  He is a police officer. He will make sure everything is taken care of and that she is protected. In other words, Jon-goo, having realized that he cannot tell the difference between good and evil, concludes that it is not worth recognizing. He will base his decision on self-interest and the interests of what is left of his family – his daughter. In the film, Jon-goo is a moral agent like anyone else, but he is not a hero. He is fearful – even comically so – and makes a lot of bad decisions. Good and evil are too difficult for him to grasp, and he chooses to give up.   
 

NYMPHOMANIAC:

 AUDIO 1
 Nymphomaniac is a 2013 film written and directed by Lars von Trier. Joe, a sex addict, is found beaten in an alley. A man, Seligman, takes pity on her and offers her a place to rest. Joe recounts of life story to him, beginning with her sexual awakening as a child to her life spiraling out of control. Seligman offers symbolic explanations to Joe's narrative and acts as an observer concerned with forgiving Joe's alleged misdeeds. Joe acts an the avatar for the director, explicitly stating her philosophies and worldview in a manner that is unambiguous to the audience. More on that later.
 Joe's life story, divided into eight “chapters” in the film, is primarily concerned with her sexual habits and views on romance. She believes love is merely sex plus jealousy. Nevertheless, she finds herself in serious romantic relationships from time to time: once with a grown man who, when she was a teenager, took her virginity. She seeks out his affection later in life, in spite of the fact that he treats her badly – or perhaps because of it. In her middle-age, she falls for and has sex with a fifteen year old girl. Again, more on that later. As the film concludes, Seligman, who up to that point claimed to be asexual, attempts to rape Joe.   
 AUDIO 2
  Von Trier was inspired to make this five hour plus film full of graphic sex and philosophical deviations after reading Marcel Proust's massive work In Search of Lost Time. It is probably not a coincidence that Proust's work was in seven volumes, exactly one less than the eight chapters in which Lars von Trier has divided his work – perhaps as an attempt to outdo Proust. Both works, superficially, involve a great amount of sex, but both purport to be the stuff of grander ideas. In Nymphomaniac, the theme that flows throughout all chapters and the various interludes in the small home with Joe and her new friend, is the concept of what Lars von Trier, at least, believes is empathy.  
  Every experience, every moment, is filtered through the subjective imagination of who is experiencing it. In Nymphomaniac, the individual is Joe. We hear her story, but there are several times in which the story becomes either impossible and at least improbable, and Joe and Seligman both acknowledge this. The film takes place in a kind of geographical No Man's Land, with only a few glances at currency telling us where this might be. It does not matter because, really, this narrative exists primarily in the memories of Joe more than any physical place.   
 [MUSIC CUE: Gabriel Faure's Requiem Op. 48 Complete (Best Recording) ]
 AUDIO 3
 Nymphomaniac is a conversation between a woman trying to explain herself and an intellectual who keeps interrupting her with mythological references, religious imagery and analogies, trying to fit everything she says something he can analyze and thus understand. Nymphomaniac is the director's passive-aggressive insult about the relationship between an artist and a critic. Since the character of Seligman explicitly tells the audience what every bit of symbolism in the film is meant to be, I won't play this particular game and instead focus on other matters. In some circles of film criticism, there is a belief in separating the art from the artist, as if a film is simply conjured into being by some abstract personification of art rather than carefully formed by human hands. In some instances and in some debates, it is admittedly not without merit, however, many directors – the so-called “auteur” directors who wish to control every aspect of production – leave a lot of themselves on the celluloid. The films are personal, each one in varying degrees. Lars von Trier's films certainly fit this qualification of being personal – the three films: Antichrist, Melancholia and Nymphomaniac – are called The Depression Trilogy.
 The director is battling his personal demons through his films and showcasing his beliefs, his philosophies, his politics and his inner struggle through these films. So, I assert that it not only acceptable but necessary to view Nymphomaniac through the lens of the director himself. Frankly, he makes it difficult not to. Joe serves as his avatar in the film, someone who espouses his view of the world. Joe is not simply a character. In her conversations with Seligman, she regurgitates a worldview that Lars von Trier declares himself either in his previous films or his public life. Joe's conversation with Seligman about what actually constitutes antisemitism is an obvious reference to accusations against the director in the past. Honestly, the topic comes out of nowhere and is a blatant attempt to clear his name within the confines of a film that otherwise has nothing to do with the subject.   
 AUDIO 4
 Much of the film's screed against the horrors of sensitivity and respect are in response to the director being temporarily banned from the Cannes Film Festival – an incident that he no doubt believes was political correctness gone mad but was actually a reaction to the admittedly drunken director exclaiming his support for the Nazis. He was almost certainly insincere, but people cannot judge what you feel “deep down” – only what you do. And so, perhaps because someone had the audacity to tell him not to shout support for the Nazis, he ramped up what he believes to be “courageous” – portraying the only black characters in the film as argumentative and childish, the audience generally unable to understand what they are saying with a lack of subtitles, and having Joe using a couple different words for black people that are no longer in proper use and considered slurs. I will not repeat them for obvious reasons.
 Nymphomaniac is an apologia for the director's actions and beliefs. The allegedly good-natured character Seligman asks Joe not to use such words, and she – the avatar of Lars von Trier – says that she is righteous for using slurs and that what she calls “political correctness” and most people would just call respect, is worse than Hitler burning books. That is actually how she puts it, meaning how Lars von Trier is putting it. This is actually a common defense from people who just really want to scream the N-word and have some kind of philosophical or historical justification. Here is the truth: The Oxford English Dictionary online adds approximately 1,000 new words each year. We are not suffering a net loss to our language because the N-word is no longer commonly used in polite conversation. Get over it.
 AUDIO 5
 The film also serves as being an apologist for pedophilia in one of Joe's most cringe-inducing speeches. Later, we see Joe in a sexual relationship with a fifteen year old girl – obviously played by an adult actress – and it is portrayed as romantic. Rape apologists love saying “Well, in SOME countries...” or “Fifteen is close enough...” Children cannot consent to a sexual relationship with an adult. There is no such thing as consensual sex with a minor. But Lars von Trier casts opposition to Joe's relationship in the same prudishness as one would cast a nun who objects to pre-marital sex between consenting adults. It is not the same thing, but the director sees no distinction. And that's dangerous. That's the danger of normalizing sex with minors. Let me be clear about this. Characters do bad things in film. It's all about how it is framed. In Nymphomaniac, Joe having sex with a fifteen year old is not framed as bad. It is framed as romantic.
 Nymphomaniac stumbles onto some truth from time to time – double standards about sex between men and women, for instance – but I don't know if the film actually serves women. The film gives us this supposedly titillating image of teenage girls roaming public transportation in search for men to seduce, but based on my conversations with women, what happens in real life is that both young girls and women search public transportation for safe seats to sit in without creepy men bothering them. The film proclaims that Joe's racism, her sympathy towards pedophiles and her statutory rape of a fifteen year old girl is the new empathy, and that those opposed to her, like her debate sparring partner Seligman, are the true monsters.   
 AUDIO 6
 At the end of the film, Seligman tries to force himself on her in the middle of the night. The implication is that Joe's worldview – as the mouthpiece for the director – is more right than that of Seligman. Prior to the attempted rape, he espoused common progressive or even just good-natured positions. The revelation that he is a monster is the director's final comment that his good heart is vile and that Joe's views are correct. It's the narrative version of a strawman argument, in this case the person preaching sensitivity and decency is literally the worst kind of person.
 In Nymphomaniac, Joe frequently says that her beliefs are the true form of empathy and that Seligman's opposing views are invariably wrong. The movie hammers this in. Joe, according to the film, has real empathy in spite of the fact that most would consider her a racist and a statutory rapist. It's the kind of worldview that sees someone trying to do good and assuming it must be self-serving, that respect is insincere. The insensitive often think of themselves as courageous – so brave to harass and degrade people and hide it under the guise of a false honesty. The insensitive often think of compassionate people as weak because they can't fathom people behaving any other way. It must be exhausting being that cynical.   
 AUDIO 7
 A film, the director has said, should be as irritating as a pebble in your shoe, and under those guidelines – those goals – one might say he succeeded, as Nymphomaniac is certainly that: irritating. However, that is a poor method in which to value a work. Low budget dreck and poorly-constructed works are similarly irritating. Nymphomaniac is not irritating. It's actually kind of despicable, which I admit I was not entirely expecting, even knowing it was written and directed by a self-admitted manipulative provocateur.  For the most part, Lars von Trier's five hour long defense of himself against accusations of insensitivity has the opposite effect. I thought very highly of Dogville, Melancholia, some aspects of Antichrist, but after looking through his films with new eyes...I think I'm over Lars von Trier. 

SILENCE:

 AUDIO 1
 What does God expect from us? Obedience? Reverence? Or only the sensitivity of our hearts? Compassion more than ritual. Deeds more than symbols. The incredible expectations of what God wants from us are central to Martin Scorsese's 2016 epic film Silence. In the 17th century, two Jesuit priests, Sebastião Rodrigues and Francisco Garupe, travel from Portugal to Japan to discover the fate of their mentor. Years prior, Ferreira and other Christians were captured by the Japanese and faced with torture and possible execution. Their only hope was to apostatize – or renounce their faith by stepping on an image of Jesus Christ. Ferreira's fate was unknown until a letter reached the Church claiming that he apostatized and began to live as the Japanese did.  
  In Japan, Rodrigues and Garupe attempt to discover whether or not Ferreira is still alive, all the while avoiding capture by the Inquisitor and his forces. Christianity has become illegal, punishable by death. Those who locate suspected Christians are given rewards in silver. They watch Japanese Christians face to decision of other apostatizing or dying. After a difficult journey, Garupe dies trying to save Japanese Christians, and Rodrigues discovers that Ferreira is alive. The letter was true: Ferreira publicly renounced his faith and no longer believes that the Japanese will be able to adopt Christianity as a religion. The cost to those who wish to convert is too great in this climate, and the culture, he believes, would not allow for it. Rodrigues, in order to save five captured and tortured Christians, also apostatizes and lives out the remainder of his years in Japan.  
  [clip]  
  AUDIO 2  
 Some historical background may be necessary. The Shimabara Rebellion was an uprising in what is now Nagasaki Prefecture in Japan between peasants, most of them Christians, and The Tokugawa Shogunate. It lasted from late 1637 to early 1638. The motivation of the peasant uprising was  the increase in taxes and persecution of Christians. The peasants lost, and in response, Christianity was driven underground. The film does not cover the period prior to this, but when the Catholic missions began a century before the events of the film, the shogunate and the imperial government supported the the missionaries under the assumption that they would reduce the power of the Buddhist monks, and increase trade with Spain and Portugal. But the shogunate began to see the missionaries as a threat after  seeing that in the Philippines the Spanish had taken power after converting the population. Japan began to see Christianity as an existential threat.    
  [TRANSITION]  
 [MUSIC CUE: MUSIC 2]  
  AUDIO 3  
  When Rodriguez is told to apostatize – to symbolically renounce his faith by stepping on the image of Jesus Christ – in order to save the tortured Christians and the hidden Christians, in a practical, pragmatic outlook, it does not really seem to be a difficult choice. Stepping on a stone vs. the torture and death of human beings – it might seem like a no-brainer, especially to non-believers but perhaps even to believers. To non-believers, this is nothing. This is merely putting one's foot on an image on the ground. Of course Rodriguez should save his people, of course the people should save themselves as well. To believers, it becomes a fascinating question about how one views God, his righteousness, his sympathy, and how God views us – how we are meant to behave and how God judges our actions and beliefs.  
 Why should God – an omnipotent and omniscient being – care about something that might seem trivial? How could God be...insecure? This conjures the image of what is sometimes called The Jealous God. Jealousy is the feeling of fear of losing something which we already possess, in God's case, humanity and the love of humanity towards himself. This is different from Envy, a so-called Cardinal Sin. Envy is the feeling of wanting something one does not already possess. This is actually an important distinction because if God created the universe and humankind, he has claim to them. From this perspective, God is jealous of what belongs to him. Worship and service belong to him alone, and are to be given to him alone.    
  AUDIO 4  
 But how could God be jealous? Isn't that a human failing? There is an answer to this, at least in Christian apologetics, but first some examples. In the Book of Exodus, Moses descends from Mt. Sinai with the Ten Commandments in his hands. The Israelites have taken God for granted, and have forgotten their deliverance from Egypt and the Red Sea. The Israelites chose idolatrous worship of a golden calf. God displayed his jealousy through Moses who burned the calf, ground it into powder, scattered the powder on water, and commanded the Israelites to ingest it. The Ten Commandments themselves contain rules explicitly stating that the Israelites shall not stray from worshiping him.  
 Jealousy is not meant to be a capricious emotion of God. Capriciousness would be without meaning. Christian believers would argue that to require less of God would relegate him to a lesser position of glory. It is with purpose. God’s jealousy and his attempts to keep the Israelites and later Christians within his ways guarantee his people’s ultimate deliverance, security and eventual salvation. In the Tanakh, although the Israelites show spiritual infidelity towards God, he spared them because he is as merciful as he is jealous. That brings us back to Ferreira as an apostate – a person who has renounced his religion. Rodrigues and Garupe claim that they must find him in Japan because if the rumor is untrue, he must be returned, and if the rumor is true and that he has apostatized, he is damned, and his soul must be saved.    
  [clip]  
  AUDIO 5  
  That complicates the concept of a jealous God because...God demands the love of his people, but God would know that when Ferreira or Rodriguez or the hidden Japanese Christians step on the image of Jesus Christ, they are insincere to the Inquisitor. God is omniscient – all-knowing – he cannot be fooled as easily as the Inquisitor. This is where everything becomes tangled. Even if God is jealous – and if it that jealousy is for a good reason and justified – isn't he also merciful? Wouldn't he forgive the apostate priests, especially under these circumstances? But that's not how many people see their relationship with God. Not everyone wants only to be a sinner who is saved, a sinner who is forgiven, but someone who wants to live up to the model of behavior of Jesus Christ. So much that stepping on an image of him takes on not only a feeling of blasphemy but of personal cowardice – personal failing.  
 Of course, that is an impossible standard of behavior, but it is what Rodriguez goes through over the course of the film. He remarks that there are those who would betray the priest for the Inquisitor's reward of 300 pieces of silver. Judas Iscariot only received 30 pieces for his betrayal. Rodriguez is similarly betrayed by Kichijiro, his companion. Judas, overcome with guilt for betraying Jesus, threw the thirty silver coins into the temple. Kichijiro throws his silver as well. When Rodriguez looks to God for help, he thinks that this is akin to Christ in the Garden of Gethsemene, lamenting his fate. When he steps on the image and apostatizes, we hear a faint sound of a rooster crowing, a reference to the denial of Jesus Christ by Peter. Rodriguez hears a voice telling him to step on the image – absolving him of wrongdoing – but who is this voice? Is it Jesus himself?    
  [TRANSITION] [MUSIC CUE: Ravel: Piano Concerto In G - 2. Adagio]  
  AUDIO 6  
  Much of Rodriguez' hesitancy towards apostatizing comes from the belief that the soul is more important than the body. If he dies, he will go to Heaven. If the Japanese Christians die with their faith intact, they, too, will go to Heaven. One might say that Rodriguez may be protecting their eternal salvation, but that brings us to something else prominently featured in the film: doubt. Rodriguez – and therefore the film – questions the mission in Japan, portraying the priests’ choices as morally complex. It isn’t entirely clear that the missionaries did more harm than good, even though they had good intentions and treated the Christian peasants well. Their actions, their mere presence in Japan, inadvertently resulted in executions – some by crucifixion. In the end, Christianity does not “take root” in Japan, as they say.    
 Going beyond the timeline of the film, all Christian denominations put together in 21st century Japan constitute approximately 1%. But more than doubt of their mission, doubt as it relates to God himself is more prominent. The titular “silence” is that of God. Rodriguez knows that all people must face challenges, but he wonders why the Japanese Christians must face greater hardships than many others. Ferreira reminds Rodrigues that God is silent, even to Christ in the Garden. Jesus is depicted only as this image: giving a blank stare. The silence of God is deafening. There is a moment, at the time Rodriguez apostatizes, when he believes he hears a voice. The divine can be heard in the silence, suffering alongside us. But we don't know whether or not this was all in his head – a useful way to exonerate himself of any wrongdoing or blasphemy.    
  AUDIO 7  
  Faith and doubt do not oppose each other. They define each other, like light and shadow. If God exists, he designed you to seek him, to feel a need for him. If the Bible is accurate, he is admittedly jealous and he has his reasons for that. Seeking is important, too. Seeking teaches patience. And if at the end of the search, there is no God, that doesn't mean there is NOTHING there. There are other reasons to wake up in the morning. The word “faith” in the spiritual context should not be mistaken for “certainty” – Faith in the spiritual context of the word means strong belief based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. “Certainty” means unassailable proof exists. In other words, if you are CERTAIN, then one would not REQUIRE faith. Certainty and faith – under the spiritual definition -- are mutually exclusive. The nature of faith requires less than certainty. It requires doubt. That's why believers say “Faith and doubt walk hand in hand. We walk by faith, and not by sight.”