Ecology is a rarely mentioned topic in religious teaching, at least in my experience. I don't remember participating in a Sunday school lesson about why we should take care of the environment, and I don't remember our environmental responsibility being a subject of any talks in sacrament meeting (the LDS Sunday service) or general conference (a worldwide semiannual LDS gathering). Several church leaders in the past have spoken about the need to care for the earth, but it's far from being a major topic of Mormon discussion. I'll focus more in my next post about why I think that is.
This post will focus much more on the LDS perspective of environmentalism. I haven't given as much time to study this topic among world religions like I have with animal consciousness, so I'm sticking to what I'm familiar with right now. But I hope the principles I mention here will be widely applicable to many faiths and traditions.
Religious arguments of environmental ethics are often grounded in doctrine regarding the creation of the earth and its purpose for existing. The biblical creation story, common to several major world religions, makes it clear that mankind has dominion over the earth. Some theologians have interpreted that dominion to mean ownership and inherent human privilege, when others have seen it as a call to responsible stewardship. Book of Mormon scripture teaches that "the Lord hath created the earth that it should be inhabited; and he hath created his children that they should possess it" (1 Nephi 17:36).
LDS scriptures gives a unique perspective as to the spiritual identity of the earth and all things on it. I mentioned a scripture in my last post (Moses 3:5) which teaches that all animals and plants have spirits and were created spiritually before they were created physically. Later in the book of Moses, we read about a revelation given to Enoch that gives a remarkable level of personification to the earth itself. "Enoch looked upon the earth; and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying: Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face?" I don't know if I believe that the earth itself has a spirit and a consciousness; but if it does, we're giving it plenty of reasons to be pained and weary.
In a nutshell, believing that the earth is something worth caring for is a motivation to be an environmentalist. But even those who take a humanocentric view of the universe have reasons to care for the earth. One of the main reasons is sustainability. It's a simple fact that several of our major resources are, though abundant, finite. If we continue to be wasteful, ignorant, and greedy, we will run out at our own peril. It might not happen during our lifetime, but we're sad examples of compassion if we leave a legacy of waste to our children and grandchildren. In the Doctrine and Covenants (other LDS scripture), the Lord states: "For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves. Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment" (104:17-18). We have enough, if we use it wisely. If we don't, and if we don't care about the state we're leaving other unfortunate people in, there will be consequences, here and in the hereafter.
My opinion on this matter is very much similar to the opinion I have of animal rights and welfare. We don't have to be complete ascetics and abstain from all the luxuries of life and technology, and we don't all have to be environmental activists (I don't plan to be). I think we'll make much more progress if we each improve our own lifestyle and strive to conserve than if we seek to change things through protest and lobbying. Changing the way we do large-scale industry will definitely have big effects, but changing the way the American household uses energy will too. There's plenty of people fighting for environmental change in the public square, but my preferred approach is personal. Whether we're religious or not, each of us has many reasons to conserve the precious and finite resources we have on the only earth we have.
Further reading:
Righteous Dominion and Compassion for the Earth, by Elder Marcus Nash of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Scriptures and statements from church leaders about the environment
Mormon newsroom: Environmental stewarship and conservation
Metamorphose
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Monday, August 18, 2014
Ecotheology: Animal consciousness and vegetarianism
This will be another series, but probably only 3 posts long this time. I'm kind of doing this to wrap up a process I just finished, which was writing a great questions essay for the honors program at BYU. The "great question" I wrote about was: "Are humans the only animals with a consciousness?" It's been a long process and a long journey, and it's affected me more than I thought it would. The essay requires students to approach the topic from three different academic disciplines; one of my three was theology. I found a lot of interesting materials detailing the position of several major world religions on the status of animals, and what I found still surprises me. If you're interested, the full text of my final draft of the essay can be found here (it's a couple dozen pages, so set aside some time).
In a nutshell, animals know and experience a lot more than most people realize. Apes especially, but dolphins, elephants, and African grey parrots (among other species) have done remarkably well in tests of self awareness, intelligence, learning, memory, planning, and creativity. Individuals of multiple species have consistently shown the ability to recognize their image in a mirror as themselves, showing that they have a level of self-concept that many people categorically deny animals. Chimpanzees and other great apes display remarkable proficiency in American Sign Language; several lab subjects have attained a vocabulary of several hundred words. Dolphins have found ways to solve problems that no one had shown them before, suggesting evidence of planning and creativity. And several African grey parrots, in research situations, have developed a habit of answering questions deliberately wrong because they were bored of the testing procedure. I won't cite evidence here; references are available in the text of my essay.
What does theology say about the status of animals? Most people are familiar with the Hindu and Buddhist doctrine of reincarnation, which basically demolishes any spiritual barriers between us and the other creatures. Countless stories exist in theological legend about animals conversing with or instructing humans, including the biblical story of Eve being deceived by a serpent. A closer look into the Hebrew text of the Old Testament suggests that God gave spirits to the animals, and Mormon theology is quite explicit about that (see Doctrine & Covenants 77:2 and Moses 3:5). Historically, Christian religions have been most disposed to deny the consciousness or spirit of animals, but theologians like Andrew Linzey, an Anglican priest, seek to overturn Christianity's disrespect and feeling of dominance towards the rest of God's creatures. I could go on, but suffice it to say that if you're religious, you have a lot more reason to believe in animal consciousness than you thought (check out Lisa Kemmerer's book "Animals and World Religions" if you want to learn more).
So why should we care? One thing I really enjoyed about Kemmerer's book is that it included an appendix detailing the current status of animal cruelty in the American meat industry today (the book was published in 2012). Before reading this, I was familiar with several activists' accounts of how animals were treated in slaughterhouses and such, but I simply assumed that it was a thing of the past. Not so. I won't go into detail, but current practice isn't much different from what it historically has been. There's enough evidence to pretty solidly debunk Descartes' idea that animals don't feel pain. There's plenty of suffering still happening to billions of them. And if you study theology deeply enough, it gives you a reason to care about it, no matter what religion you belong to.
Outside of this blog post, I don't plan to become an animal rights activist. Frankly, I don't know how effective any efforts will be to get the meat industry to change the way they do things. But we can change how much we support the industry; namely, by changing how much of their products we buy and consume.
This is Graham Hill, an environmental activist of sorts. This short TED talk is aimed towards people who have thought about being vegetarian before, but didn't think they would be able to do it completely. In Hill's words, "Imagine your last hamburger." For me, I think going vegetarian would be doable but difficult. I don't know if I could ever go vegan; I enjoy dairy too much. The reason I enjoy Hill's approach is this: when I've heard other people's arguments for vegetarianism in the past, it frequently seems to be couched in language that suggest we should accept vegetarianism completely or not at all. Go big or go home. Hill realizes that this sort of rhetoric is counterproductive; what about all the people who see and agree with the good reasons for it, but don't want to go 100% (like me)? All-or-nothing vegetarians are wasting their time and effort on them.
So he offers an alternative: be a weekday vegetarian. Monday through Friday, no meat. Saturday and Sunday, eat what you want. After all, he says, "If all of us ate half as much meat, it would be like half of us were vegetarian". He doesn't cite any of the reasons why most people go vegetarian (check this out if you want to see the best ones), this talk is primarily to offer people an option besides complete vegetarianism. This is something I plan to try out when I'm back in college. Feel free to join me if you'd like.
In a nutshell, animals know and experience a lot more than most people realize. Apes especially, but dolphins, elephants, and African grey parrots (among other species) have done remarkably well in tests of self awareness, intelligence, learning, memory, planning, and creativity. Individuals of multiple species have consistently shown the ability to recognize their image in a mirror as themselves, showing that they have a level of self-concept that many people categorically deny animals. Chimpanzees and other great apes display remarkable proficiency in American Sign Language; several lab subjects have attained a vocabulary of several hundred words. Dolphins have found ways to solve problems that no one had shown them before, suggesting evidence of planning and creativity. And several African grey parrots, in research situations, have developed a habit of answering questions deliberately wrong because they were bored of the testing procedure. I won't cite evidence here; references are available in the text of my essay.
What does theology say about the status of animals? Most people are familiar with the Hindu and Buddhist doctrine of reincarnation, which basically demolishes any spiritual barriers between us and the other creatures. Countless stories exist in theological legend about animals conversing with or instructing humans, including the biblical story of Eve being deceived by a serpent. A closer look into the Hebrew text of the Old Testament suggests that God gave spirits to the animals, and Mormon theology is quite explicit about that (see Doctrine & Covenants 77:2 and Moses 3:5). Historically, Christian religions have been most disposed to deny the consciousness or spirit of animals, but theologians like Andrew Linzey, an Anglican priest, seek to overturn Christianity's disrespect and feeling of dominance towards the rest of God's creatures. I could go on, but suffice it to say that if you're religious, you have a lot more reason to believe in animal consciousness than you thought (check out Lisa Kemmerer's book "Animals and World Religions" if you want to learn more).
So why should we care? One thing I really enjoyed about Kemmerer's book is that it included an appendix detailing the current status of animal cruelty in the American meat industry today (the book was published in 2012). Before reading this, I was familiar with several activists' accounts of how animals were treated in slaughterhouses and such, but I simply assumed that it was a thing of the past. Not so. I won't go into detail, but current practice isn't much different from what it historically has been. There's enough evidence to pretty solidly debunk Descartes' idea that animals don't feel pain. There's plenty of suffering still happening to billions of them. And if you study theology deeply enough, it gives you a reason to care about it, no matter what religion you belong to.
Outside of this blog post, I don't plan to become an animal rights activist. Frankly, I don't know how effective any efforts will be to get the meat industry to change the way they do things. But we can change how much we support the industry; namely, by changing how much of their products we buy and consume.
This is Graham Hill, an environmental activist of sorts. This short TED talk is aimed towards people who have thought about being vegetarian before, but didn't think they would be able to do it completely. In Hill's words, "Imagine your last hamburger." For me, I think going vegetarian would be doable but difficult. I don't know if I could ever go vegan; I enjoy dairy too much. The reason I enjoy Hill's approach is this: when I've heard other people's arguments for vegetarianism in the past, it frequently seems to be couched in language that suggest we should accept vegetarianism completely or not at all. Go big or go home. Hill realizes that this sort of rhetoric is counterproductive; what about all the people who see and agree with the good reasons for it, but don't want to go 100% (like me)? All-or-nothing vegetarians are wasting their time and effort on them.
So he offers an alternative: be a weekday vegetarian. Monday through Friday, no meat. Saturday and Sunday, eat what you want. After all, he says, "If all of us ate half as much meat, it would be like half of us were vegetarian". He doesn't cite any of the reasons why most people go vegetarian (check this out if you want to see the best ones), this talk is primarily to offer people an option besides complete vegetarianism. This is something I plan to try out when I'm back in college. Feel free to join me if you'd like.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
My OK Go fanboy post
So, a few months back my brother wrote a fan post on his blog for one of his favorite artists, Sara Bareilles. Now, Sara Bareilles is talented and all, and I do respect her as an artist. But I choose to write about musical groups that don't put my man card in danger (and I'm only writing that because my brother hates it when I talk about man cards). So, OK Go.
Some of you may be aware that OK Go recently came out with a new music video.
Yeah. Awesome. I know. I've shared it with a few people over the last few weeks, and about half the time, they're like, "Who's OK Go?"
WHAT THE HECK, PEOPLE. And most of the other half says something like, "Wait...weren't they those people who danced on the treadmills and stuff?"
Yes. Yes they were. But PEOPLE. They have done SO MUCH MORE cool things since then (which was 2006, by the way. 8 years ago).
Like this.
And this.
And freaking THIS.
PEOPLE. They built a mile-and-a-half long instrument, and they're playing it with a car.
WITH A CAR.
Oh, and they do almost every single one of their music videos in one continuous camera shot, with the exception of the car video, and End Love, which was probably stop-motion photography.
They're coming to Salt Lake in two days, and I think it goes without saying that I can't wait to see them.
One thing that impresses me about the band is that several of these projects have brought together dozens of people to try and do something that's never been done before. But the main reason I love OK Go so much is because they take creativity so far beyond the limits of what anybody thought a band could do. I'm pretty sure at some point during the making of one or more of these music videos, somebody came up to them and said, "Um, isn't this pretty much impossible?" "This is never, NEVER going to work." "You've tried this, like, 40 times already, why don't you just give up?" "Why are you buying 280 guitars and 55 pianos to make this music video?"
And they just do it anyway. They never say it, but everything they do sends the message that creativity doesn't have limits. There shouldn't be anybody who says, "You can't do this." There shouldn't be anybody who says that something you created has broken the rules of creativity. Because there are none.
Some of you may be aware that OK Go recently came out with a new music video.
Yeah. Awesome. I know. I've shared it with a few people over the last few weeks, and about half the time, they're like, "Who's OK Go?"
WHAT THE HECK, PEOPLE. And most of the other half says something like, "Wait...weren't they those people who danced on the treadmills and stuff?"
Yes. Yes they were. But PEOPLE. They have done SO MUCH MORE cool things since then (which was 2006, by the way. 8 years ago).
Like this.
And this.
And freaking THIS.
PEOPLE. They built a mile-and-a-half long instrument, and they're playing it with a car.
WITH A CAR.
Oh, and they do almost every single one of their music videos in one continuous camera shot, with the exception of the car video, and End Love, which was probably stop-motion photography.
They're coming to Salt Lake in two days, and I think it goes without saying that I can't wait to see them.
One thing that impresses me about the band is that several of these projects have brought together dozens of people to try and do something that's never been done before. But the main reason I love OK Go so much is because they take creativity so far beyond the limits of what anybody thought a band could do. I'm pretty sure at some point during the making of one or more of these music videos, somebody came up to them and said, "Um, isn't this pretty much impossible?" "This is never, NEVER going to work." "You've tried this, like, 40 times already, why don't you just give up?" "Why are you buying 280 guitars and 55 pianos to make this music video?"
And they just do it anyway. They never say it, but everything they do sends the message that creativity doesn't have limits. There shouldn't be anybody who says, "You can't do this." There shouldn't be anybody who says that something you created has broken the rules of creativity. Because there are none.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Skepticism and deception: Finding the right balance
As a Christian person, I'm still trying to find the right midpoint between extreme skepticism and extreme gullibility. Two questions are relevant in my mind: How skeptical does the Lord allow us to be, and how skeptical does the Lord need us to be? One scriptures that comes to mind is Matthew 10:16: "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves."
I was first introduced to this scripture on my mission in a somewhat different context, but I think it has significant meaning when applied to the issue at hand. The word "serpents" in Christian scripture is most often a symbol for the adversary and/or his followers. To me, then, this scripture means that Christ is commanding His apostles to possess the same intellectual skills as their greatest enemies. They are to examine evidence, search for truth in as many valid ways as they can, and be unafraid to reject an idea that might be wrong (but be equally inclined to embrace an idea that is correct).
But the "harmless as doves" ending seems to reject the intellectual cynicism that is characteristic of many skeptics. Some would argue that the attitude of a skeptic is one of his greatest skills; that the ability to be a skeptic, occasionally summoned, is far less valuable than the consistent habit of being a skeptic. This echoes the words of Eliezer Yudkowsky (who I've mentioned in this post and this post), who said of rationality, "It's dangerous to be half a rationalist." By this, he means that it's hazardous to someone's intellect to selectively practice methods of rationality. Particularly, it's dangerous to apply the flame of curiosity and skepticism to everyone else's beliefs without turning that flame on your own ideas to assess them for credulity.
When I first read those words, I was reminded of something I thought about on my mission after talking about anti-Mormon literature with my companion. I remember thinking, "You know, I bet somewhere out there, there's a piece of anti-Mormon literature that if I read it, I would leave the church." I kind of left it at that, not really wanting to think about it more deeply. Later on, I realized that that idea itself wasn't the problem, it was the fact that I simultaneously held that idea in my mind with the contradictory desire to not ever read anti-Mormon literature. If I knew that there was information that would make me scrap my beliefs, but decided against that realization to stay away from the information, wasn't I avoiding truth? Wasn't that the bigger problem?
While writing this series of posts, I realized that, in order for this cognitive dissonance to actually be a problem, it had to be the case that if any given information made me reject my current belief schema, it was because it was true information. In other words, if it's possible for false information to make me turn away from my beliefs, then the cognitive dissonance is just the fear of being deceived. I think it's entirely possible for me to read something that contains sound factual evidence, but to be misled by the interpretation an author claims from that evidence.
So, I could turn the flame of curiosity and skepticism up to 100% and aim it at myself and everyone around me. I could spend hours reading everything that's ever written about Mormon beliefs or Christian beliefs, from apologists and antagonists alike. I could spend every minute questioning and doubting instead of believing, but I'm not going to. Why? Because I think it would be far too easy to commit a type II error.
Let's say our null hypothesis is "Mormon/Christian doctrine is not true" (remember, null hypothesis include the word "not"). A type II error is failing to reject a false null hypothesis; in this case, rejecting Mormon/Christian doctrine when it is actually true. I think if I tried to be as skeptical as possible, with my infantile skills of evaluating truth, someone smarter than me could easily deceive me into a type II error. And in this case, weighing the consequences makes a type II error far more dangerous. If I make a type I error, the consequence is me being a lifelong member of the church and being about as happy as I am now. If I make a type II error, the consequence is me being a spectacular rationalist/skeptic (or so I think), but being deceived, which holds far greater consequences. To put it simply, I'm not taking that risk.
But I don't want to be blind to truth. I think God wants us to know all truth, wherever it is. People might want to keep us from truth, but God doesn't. As a developing skeptic and a developing disciple, I think it's best to increase my skills of both in parallel. The more I learn, the better I'll understand how to find truth, the better I'll be able to discern fact from fiction, the better I'll be able to determine what a collection of facts implies, and the better I'll be able to make the right call about something and avoid type I and type II errors. As I move forward in life, I'll gradually turn up the flame of curiosity and skepticism so that I can find out what is really true. But because I do it slowly, I won't subject myself to a level of curiosity that will mislead me. I won't be hard on my own beliefs until I'm ready to do it without fooling myself. And that, I think, is the right balance.
I was first introduced to this scripture on my mission in a somewhat different context, but I think it has significant meaning when applied to the issue at hand. The word "serpents" in Christian scripture is most often a symbol for the adversary and/or his followers. To me, then, this scripture means that Christ is commanding His apostles to possess the same intellectual skills as their greatest enemies. They are to examine evidence, search for truth in as many valid ways as they can, and be unafraid to reject an idea that might be wrong (but be equally inclined to embrace an idea that is correct).
But the "harmless as doves" ending seems to reject the intellectual cynicism that is characteristic of many skeptics. Some would argue that the attitude of a skeptic is one of his greatest skills; that the ability to be a skeptic, occasionally summoned, is far less valuable than the consistent habit of being a skeptic. This echoes the words of Eliezer Yudkowsky (who I've mentioned in this post and this post), who said of rationality, "It's dangerous to be half a rationalist." By this, he means that it's hazardous to someone's intellect to selectively practice methods of rationality. Particularly, it's dangerous to apply the flame of curiosity and skepticism to everyone else's beliefs without turning that flame on your own ideas to assess them for credulity.
When I first read those words, I was reminded of something I thought about on my mission after talking about anti-Mormon literature with my companion. I remember thinking, "You know, I bet somewhere out there, there's a piece of anti-Mormon literature that if I read it, I would leave the church." I kind of left it at that, not really wanting to think about it more deeply. Later on, I realized that that idea itself wasn't the problem, it was the fact that I simultaneously held that idea in my mind with the contradictory desire to not ever read anti-Mormon literature. If I knew that there was information that would make me scrap my beliefs, but decided against that realization to stay away from the information, wasn't I avoiding truth? Wasn't that the bigger problem?
While writing this series of posts, I realized that, in order for this cognitive dissonance to actually be a problem, it had to be the case that if any given information made me reject my current belief schema, it was because it was true information. In other words, if it's possible for false information to make me turn away from my beliefs, then the cognitive dissonance is just the fear of being deceived. I think it's entirely possible for me to read something that contains sound factual evidence, but to be misled by the interpretation an author claims from that evidence.
So, I could turn the flame of curiosity and skepticism up to 100% and aim it at myself and everyone around me. I could spend hours reading everything that's ever written about Mormon beliefs or Christian beliefs, from apologists and antagonists alike. I could spend every minute questioning and doubting instead of believing, but I'm not going to. Why? Because I think it would be far too easy to commit a type II error.
Let's say our null hypothesis is "Mormon/Christian doctrine is not true" (remember, null hypothesis include the word "not"). A type II error is failing to reject a false null hypothesis; in this case, rejecting Mormon/Christian doctrine when it is actually true. I think if I tried to be as skeptical as possible, with my infantile skills of evaluating truth, someone smarter than me could easily deceive me into a type II error. And in this case, weighing the consequences makes a type II error far more dangerous. If I make a type I error, the consequence is me being a lifelong member of the church and being about as happy as I am now. If I make a type II error, the consequence is me being a spectacular rationalist/skeptic (or so I think), but being deceived, which holds far greater consequences. To put it simply, I'm not taking that risk.
But I don't want to be blind to truth. I think God wants us to know all truth, wherever it is. People might want to keep us from truth, but God doesn't. As a developing skeptic and a developing disciple, I think it's best to increase my skills of both in parallel. The more I learn, the better I'll understand how to find truth, the better I'll be able to discern fact from fiction, the better I'll be able to determine what a collection of facts implies, and the better I'll be able to make the right call about something and avoid type I and type II errors. As I move forward in life, I'll gradually turn up the flame of curiosity and skepticism so that I can find out what is really true. But because I do it slowly, I won't subject myself to a level of curiosity that will mislead me. I won't be hard on my own beliefs until I'm ready to do it without fooling myself. And that, I think, is the right balance.
Monday, July 21, 2014
Skepticism and deception: Why does it seem so easy to be deceived?
"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."
-Matthew 24:24
Did you ever read that scripture and think, "Well, that's not fair!" The elect of God are supposed to be those who are most devoted to Him, those who are His most faithful followers. Why should it even be possible for them to be deceived? If the best people on the earth are led away, what hope do the rest of us have?
The "if it were possible" qualifier makes it somewhat ambiguous. There are arguments from several denominations for and against the possibility of the very elect being deceived. To be honest, I'm not sure which side is right. Frankly, I don't think it's within our ability to define who "the very elect" are. But the issue of deception is, I think, an issue of what heavenly communication really is and what it is not. It is what divides communication with God from communication with the adversary.
Having been raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I remember at various times having conversations with members in which they mentioned certain methods of communication that the devil could not imitate. I'm not well studied enough to know where they got this information from, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a sort of cultural meme. But while writing this series of posts, the idea somewhat intrigued me; that we supposedly can know of communication methods that are "off limits" to Satan. I hope you'll forgive me if I go into some statistics terminology to explain my thoughts about it.
In statistics, there exists an idea called the null hypothesis. It is a claim that usually includes the words "is not" or "does not", which can be assessed for validity by statistical methods. Examples of null hypotheses include "vaccines do not cause autism" and "global warming is not occurring". With respect to the null hypothesis, one can make either a Type I or a Type II error. A type I error occurs when a true null hypothesis is rejected, whereas a type II error occurs when we fail to reject a false null hypothesis (we don't say "accept" in statistics; statistics is devoid of acceptance).
Coming back to the general topic, we might say a relevant null hypothesis is "The adversary cannot communicate by method X". A type I error, therefore, would be an incorrect assumption that he could indeed communicate a certain way when in fact he could not. A type II error would be incorrectly assuming that he could not communicate a certain way when in fact he could. Suffice it to say that, if I was attempting to deceive a great number of people, I would try to get them to commit as many type II errors as possible. In other words, I would try to falsely convince them of ways that I supposedly could not communicate, or methods of deception that I could not or would not use.
This is not a blog post about how to avoid being deceived. I don't know nearly enough about that to justifiably talk about it, though the scriptures provide a good starting point. It is also not a blog post about why seemingly good people are deceived, for the same reason. I don't know for sure if there are ways that are absolutely and definitely barred to the adversary in all cases, and I don't know how we would safely know if there were. I'd like to think there are, and I believe that there are.
On my mission in Alabama, I met a few sincere, concerned, loving Christians who fully believed that we were being misled and compassionately attempted to help us learn of our mistake. Some of them acknowledged that we were good people and were trying to do what was right, but that we were missing necessary elements on the path to salvation. I never asked them this, but I sometimes thought, "If my only problem is that I believe something that isn't true, is that enough for me to miss out on salvation?"
I don't believe in a God who withholds salvation from the merely deceived. To do that, especially to someone who was trying their best to do what they thought was right, would not be merciful nor just. I really would not be able to see any fairness in the situation of someone being told in the afterlife, "You did your best, but you just believed the wrong things. Sorry." Deception, coupled with vices, can inflict terrible damage, but I just can't see how deception by itself is enough to keep anyone out of heaven.
-Matthew 24:24
Did you ever read that scripture and think, "Well, that's not fair!" The elect of God are supposed to be those who are most devoted to Him, those who are His most faithful followers. Why should it even be possible for them to be deceived? If the best people on the earth are led away, what hope do the rest of us have?
The "if it were possible" qualifier makes it somewhat ambiguous. There are arguments from several denominations for and against the possibility of the very elect being deceived. To be honest, I'm not sure which side is right. Frankly, I don't think it's within our ability to define who "the very elect" are. But the issue of deception is, I think, an issue of what heavenly communication really is and what it is not. It is what divides communication with God from communication with the adversary.
Having been raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I remember at various times having conversations with members in which they mentioned certain methods of communication that the devil could not imitate. I'm not well studied enough to know where they got this information from, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a sort of cultural meme. But while writing this series of posts, the idea somewhat intrigued me; that we supposedly can know of communication methods that are "off limits" to Satan. I hope you'll forgive me if I go into some statistics terminology to explain my thoughts about it.
In statistics, there exists an idea called the null hypothesis. It is a claim that usually includes the words "is not" or "does not", which can be assessed for validity by statistical methods. Examples of null hypotheses include "vaccines do not cause autism" and "global warming is not occurring". With respect to the null hypothesis, one can make either a Type I or a Type II error. A type I error occurs when a true null hypothesis is rejected, whereas a type II error occurs when we fail to reject a false null hypothesis (we don't say "accept" in statistics; statistics is devoid of acceptance).
Coming back to the general topic, we might say a relevant null hypothesis is "The adversary cannot communicate by method X". A type I error, therefore, would be an incorrect assumption that he could indeed communicate a certain way when in fact he could not. A type II error would be incorrectly assuming that he could not communicate a certain way when in fact he could. Suffice it to say that, if I was attempting to deceive a great number of people, I would try to get them to commit as many type II errors as possible. In other words, I would try to falsely convince them of ways that I supposedly could not communicate, or methods of deception that I could not or would not use.
This is not a blog post about how to avoid being deceived. I don't know nearly enough about that to justifiably talk about it, though the scriptures provide a good starting point. It is also not a blog post about why seemingly good people are deceived, for the same reason. I don't know for sure if there are ways that are absolutely and definitely barred to the adversary in all cases, and I don't know how we would safely know if there were. I'd like to think there are, and I believe that there are.
On my mission in Alabama, I met a few sincere, concerned, loving Christians who fully believed that we were being misled and compassionately attempted to help us learn of our mistake. Some of them acknowledged that we were good people and were trying to do what was right, but that we were missing necessary elements on the path to salvation. I never asked them this, but I sometimes thought, "If my only problem is that I believe something that isn't true, is that enough for me to miss out on salvation?"
I don't believe in a God who withholds salvation from the merely deceived. To do that, especially to someone who was trying their best to do what they thought was right, would not be merciful nor just. I really would not be able to see any fairness in the situation of someone being told in the afterlife, "You did your best, but you just believed the wrong things. Sorry." Deception, coupled with vices, can inflict terrible damage, but I just can't see how deception by itself is enough to keep anyone out of heaven.
Saturday, July 12, 2014
Skepticism and deception: The extreme of skepticism
Yes, I am aware that I wrote "skepticism" twice in the title. Too bad.
In this post, we swing the pendulum to the opposing apex and examine the character of those who resist belief to almost everything. As in the last post, I could target people will not even begin to give a shred of belief to something unless confronted with peer-reviewed, incontrovertible evidence, but I likewise do not believe anyone like that exists. So this is my definition of the extreme skeptic:
1. When presented with new information/ideas, the skeptic will compare it to what he already knows, and base his response upon the new information's similarities to the known information.
2. The skeptic will view evidence for and against the validity of the new information.
3. The skeptic will formulate an opinion based on evaluation of the evidence gathered.
I hope, thus far, that I have painted a fairly neutral picture of the attitude of the skeptic towards new ideas. When most people hear the word "skeptic", they think of a caustic, opinionated antagonist who usually reacts to others' beliefs with disdain, like the Pharisees of Jesus' day (although "disdain" would be somewhat of an understatement). There are definitely a lot of skeptics like this, but I think the "best" skeptics, the most practiced skeptics, have separated themselves from this attitude.
Good skeptics realize that it's not worth making an emotional show about something they believe is wrong unless 1) they think they have solid evidence behind their opinion and 2) they believe that the false information is damaging enough to warrant attacking it. If they lack these things, they will try their best to be neutral until they have enough truth to back up an opinion. In short, they follow the Litany of Tarski:
If the box contains a diamond,
I desire to believe the box contains a diamond;
If the box does not contain a diamond,
I desire to believe that the box does not contain a diamond.
Let me not become attached to beliefs I may not want.
At this point, I'll go ahead and admit I really like the idea of skepticism. As a skill, I think skepticism is valuable. But I also believe strongly in my faith, and the evidence I have for that belief is difficult, if not impossible, to transmit to others. The main purpose of writing this post is for me to give my best answer to the question, "Why is complete skepticism a bad idea?"
In a way, this is the same question as "Why does God require faith?" Faith is the act of moving forward with something when you don't have solid evidence that it's true. The complete skeptic will not take part in this. He will evaluate evidence and study viewpoints, but he will not give himself over to something, even temporarily, until he knows for sure that it will have a return. He is unwilling to sacrifice something of real value. But what is the true value of a cause if one is unwilling to sacrifice part of himself for it? What is it worth if you're not willing to give up something that you might not get back?
If the cause you're putting faith in is untrue, it's probably not going to yield a valuable, unique return for long. But with some causes, the only way you can ever find its truth is to sacrifice.
In this post, we swing the pendulum to the opposing apex and examine the character of those who resist belief to almost everything. As in the last post, I could target people will not even begin to give a shred of belief to something unless confronted with peer-reviewed, incontrovertible evidence, but I likewise do not believe anyone like that exists. So this is my definition of the extreme skeptic:
1. When presented with new information/ideas, the skeptic will compare it to what he already knows, and base his response upon the new information's similarities to the known information.
2. The skeptic will view evidence for and against the validity of the new information.
3. The skeptic will formulate an opinion based on evaluation of the evidence gathered.
I hope, thus far, that I have painted a fairly neutral picture of the attitude of the skeptic towards new ideas. When most people hear the word "skeptic", they think of a caustic, opinionated antagonist who usually reacts to others' beliefs with disdain, like the Pharisees of Jesus' day (although "disdain" would be somewhat of an understatement). There are definitely a lot of skeptics like this, but I think the "best" skeptics, the most practiced skeptics, have separated themselves from this attitude.
Good skeptics realize that it's not worth making an emotional show about something they believe is wrong unless 1) they think they have solid evidence behind their opinion and 2) they believe that the false information is damaging enough to warrant attacking it. If they lack these things, they will try their best to be neutral until they have enough truth to back up an opinion. In short, they follow the Litany of Tarski:
If the box contains a diamond,
I desire to believe the box contains a diamond;
If the box does not contain a diamond,
I desire to believe that the box does not contain a diamond.
Let me not become attached to beliefs I may not want.
At this point, I'll go ahead and admit I really like the idea of skepticism. As a skill, I think skepticism is valuable. But I also believe strongly in my faith, and the evidence I have for that belief is difficult, if not impossible, to transmit to others. The main purpose of writing this post is for me to give my best answer to the question, "Why is complete skepticism a bad idea?"
In a way, this is the same question as "Why does God require faith?" Faith is the act of moving forward with something when you don't have solid evidence that it's true. The complete skeptic will not take part in this. He will evaluate evidence and study viewpoints, but he will not give himself over to something, even temporarily, until he knows for sure that it will have a return. He is unwilling to sacrifice something of real value. But what is the true value of a cause if one is unwilling to sacrifice part of himself for it? What is it worth if you're not willing to give up something that you might not get back?
If the cause you're putting faith in is untrue, it's probably not going to yield a valuable, unique return for long. But with some causes, the only way you can ever find its truth is to sacrifice.
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Skepticism and deception: The extreme of gullibility
In this post, I could talk about the complete extremity of the spectrum of belief, composed of people who unquestioningly and immediately believe 100% of what they are told. But I don't think it's practical to go that far, partially because I really hope there's not a soul on this planet that's like that. So this is how I will describe the extremely gullible:
1. Their first instinct, upon hearing new ideas/material, is to believe it.
2. They do nothing to suppress that instinct.
3. They require little to no proof to maintain their beliefs.
Even this is irrational to expect of someone, but I bet there's a few people floating around that fit this description. So why is it dangerous to have a knee-jerk belief response to new information? Besides making you an easy target for scammers, this habit disables you from determining what information is important and what is not. Truth is a stubborn thing, and absolute truth is going to stand up to any and all attempts to debunk it, even if it takes time. But grabbing on to whatever ideas are currently popular is a shaky strategy at best.
Truth is the best foundation upon which to live your life, because by definition, it doesn't change: "Truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" (Doctrine & Covenants 93:24). That's a good definition of truth whether you're religious or not. Fad fades. Trend dies. But truth is the thing that will not move; and if you know where you want to be and build on truth, you won't move either.
But I'm drifting off topic. The other form of gullibility I want to discuss is excessive trust in people. This I find much more tolerable, for this reason: in a perfect world, everybody should be trustworthy and dependable. Even if we fail, we should give our best to keep our promises to others. I believe this is part of what will make heaven heavenly: we will be part of a society in which we can put complete trust in everyone we interact with. But excessive trust in new information is risky regardless of morality, because often people are just wrong, despite their best intentions. Usually it's harmlessly wrong, but sometimes it's dangerously wrong.
In many ways, I look up to people who tend to trust those around them. They're looking for the good in people, and they live by the philosophy that everyone is motivated by the just and true. If they put themselves around the right people, their innocent trust probably won't get them into trouble. If they get unlucky, they might get hurt, and they might learn to doubt others' intentions. But I'd rather be somebody who trusts too much than trusts too little. People who trust no one miss out on too much. For lack of a better ending, here's one by Ernest Hemingway:
"The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them."
1. Their first instinct, upon hearing new ideas/material, is to believe it.
2. They do nothing to suppress that instinct.
3. They require little to no proof to maintain their beliefs.
Even this is irrational to expect of someone, but I bet there's a few people floating around that fit this description. So why is it dangerous to have a knee-jerk belief response to new information? Besides making you an easy target for scammers, this habit disables you from determining what information is important and what is not. Truth is a stubborn thing, and absolute truth is going to stand up to any and all attempts to debunk it, even if it takes time. But grabbing on to whatever ideas are currently popular is a shaky strategy at best.
Truth is the best foundation upon which to live your life, because by definition, it doesn't change: "Truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" (Doctrine & Covenants 93:24). That's a good definition of truth whether you're religious or not. Fad fades. Trend dies. But truth is the thing that will not move; and if you know where you want to be and build on truth, you won't move either.
But I'm drifting off topic. The other form of gullibility I want to discuss is excessive trust in people. This I find much more tolerable, for this reason: in a perfect world, everybody should be trustworthy and dependable. Even if we fail, we should give our best to keep our promises to others. I believe this is part of what will make heaven heavenly: we will be part of a society in which we can put complete trust in everyone we interact with. But excessive trust in new information is risky regardless of morality, because often people are just wrong, despite their best intentions. Usually it's harmlessly wrong, but sometimes it's dangerously wrong.
In many ways, I look up to people who tend to trust those around them. They're looking for the good in people, and they live by the philosophy that everyone is motivated by the just and true. If they put themselves around the right people, their innocent trust probably won't get them into trouble. If they get unlucky, they might get hurt, and they might learn to doubt others' intentions. But I'd rather be somebody who trusts too much than trusts too little. People who trust no one miss out on too much. For lack of a better ending, here's one by Ernest Hemingway:
"The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)