Do you believe in Zeus? You know, the King of the Gods who hurls lightning bolts at people and at the gods he is mad at (that is, when he is not defiling human females because of his insatiable lust)? No? Well, I don't either.
Why don't you?
What about Odin? Zoroaster? Vishnu?
Why not?
Perhaps your answer is that you believe in Jehovah (or Yahweh or Jesus, etc). Okay then, sorry, but that is a terrible answer. Why is it terrible? Because from my perspective, you have only stated that you deny an unprovable assertion because it contradicts another unprovable assertion that you happen to believe is true (and that is most likely because your parents told you that it is true and that you would be a wicked person if you didn't believe it). For example, I could say that I know that there cannot be an invisible pink unicorn because my religion "informs" me that invisible unicorns are always purple. It makes as much sense as most people who say "I know Islam is false because I know the Bible is true." Does in not occur to you that the Muslim terrorists who will gladly kill you "know" that Christianity is false because the Koran is true?
Enough ranting. Let me give you the main themes that lead to my unbelief:
1) Intellectual. There simply is not compelling evidence that there is a super being acting and changing our world according to Its plan. Nor that the Bible is even remotely true. And there are so many reasons here. But I won't rehash them. Let's just say that all of the arguments I have ever seen were not at all compelling. Rather, they strike me as desperate attempts by believers to reassure themselves that they were not being irrational.
2) Moral. Let's face it, the God depicted in the Bible is a bastard. I mean, have you read the Old Testament? This guy is a total jerk. Why would you worship him? I think Anthony Flew aptly described him as a "Cosmic Saddam Hussein". Though I am not sure Saddam has committed anywhere near enough atrocities nor shown enough vanity to earn such accolades.
3) Intellectual. What does the evidence really suggest? Perhaps that there is an "Ultimate Unknowable" that is "Being Itself". But what does that mean? Well, nothing I have heard anyone coherently articulate. But, from my perspective, what does this "unknown" aspect of reality imply? I don't know - there is something about reality I don't understand? That's it. But I would say this: I find that the hypothesis of a God who is totally indifferent to human happiness makes much more sense than the idea that there is a God who gives a shit.
4) Moral. And to that point, considering the awesome vastness of the Universe, I find it even more unlikely that this God not only gives a shit, but that "he" cares whether Earth males get their dick sucked by males or females. Or whether Earth women kiss women. Or whether Earth men wear a condoms during sex. Why would such an all-powerful being over such vastness give a crap about how we get our rocks off? Speaking of vanity.
5) And let's talk about what I call the "God accountability flow chart". Here is my rendition:
Did a bad thing happen? If No, Praise God.
Else,
Did you or your loved ones survive unscathed?, If yes, praise God.
Else,
Did you or your loved ones survive, but now your quality of life now sucks? If yes, praise him. He has has a plan. Praise him!
Else,
If you don't praise Him, burn in hell, you ungrateful sinner.
End
6) Okay, consider this story. God makes humans whom He knows will disobey him. But, he gets pissed at them anyways (and kills a bunch of them in a tantrum). But wait! He will forgive them if only 2 things happen: 1) They have to beg forgiveness, and 2) Someone has to get tortured and killed, anyone, even his Son will do. Sure, that makes sense. I mean, he couldn't just forgive us. No, someone has to suffer.
7) Oh, did I mention that the Bible is wrong about science on almost every turn? Oh, never mind...
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Are Generation Y/Millenials whining slackers?
I hear this a lot. Mostly from people who are either Gen X (like me) or Boomers. It goes something like this: Kids these days, they are so spoiled. The can't get their careers going because they won't take a menial job and work their way up (like "we" did). They are spoiled and expect everything to be handed to them. It's why they live in their parents' basement. Brats!
To tell you the truth, this annoys the hell out of me. I actually think the last generation that seriously did a good job making the world a better place for their children was the WWII generation. And frankly, their children, the Boomers, have been the worst (not that my generation is squeaky clean). A what do I mean? It mean that the WWII generation made sacrifices so that their children would do better than they did. Like, (Holy Christ!), paying higher taxes for better schools and universities (those WWII guys were practically commies by today's standards), passing the clean air act, etc.
I may not have my stats correct, because I am going from memory, but in the 1970's, a student at the University of Minnesota paid for about 25% the cost out of pocket. The tax payers picked up the rest. Today? Students pay for 2/3 to 3/4 the cost - and it's a much larger cost. After all, is it fair to expect Baby Boomers to chip in and help kids today the way WWIIer's helped the Boomers? And for the huge amount of debt today's 20-somethings graduate with, what do they get? Lousy career and job prospects. Can you pay your students loans office sweeping floors, pouring coffee or flipping burgers (would you like fries with that)? heck no! And there are simply not enough good career jobs compared to the number of graduates. Why is that? Probably a lot of reasons, no one thing and no simple explanation will really do. A short list would have to include demographics, the general cheapening of labor (including white collar), greater economic imbalance, globalization, etc. But the one thing I think is absolutely untrue is this: It's the fault of the 20 somethings.
Moving beyond education, how have we viewed our legacy to the younger generations? Given a choice between lifestyle sacrifices versus denial on global warming, we have chosen denial. Given a choice between painful spending and tax increases versus more spending and tax cuts, we have chosen the latter. When choosing between funding public pension plans or underfunding and spending more today, we have chosen the latter. And pretty much every time we need to choose between the welfare of future generations and our personal welfare today, we choose the latter.
So, are 20-somethings cynical and unmotivated? Perhaps. And I would argue likely with good cause. But the next time you (and by this I mean us - Boomers and X'ers) want to blame someone for the prospects of 20 somethings, go get a mirror. Or perhaps I should say that when you decide to blame Gen Y/Millenials, I think their proper reply should be should be "Shut the fuck up assholes!"
To tell you the truth, this annoys the hell out of me. I actually think the last generation that seriously did a good job making the world a better place for their children was the WWII generation. And frankly, their children, the Boomers, have been the worst (not that my generation is squeaky clean). A what do I mean? It mean that the WWII generation made sacrifices so that their children would do better than they did. Like, (Holy Christ!), paying higher taxes for better schools and universities (those WWII guys were practically commies by today's standards), passing the clean air act, etc.
I may not have my stats correct, because I am going from memory, but in the 1970's, a student at the University of Minnesota paid for about 25% the cost out of pocket. The tax payers picked up the rest. Today? Students pay for 2/3 to 3/4 the cost - and it's a much larger cost. After all, is it fair to expect Baby Boomers to chip in and help kids today the way WWIIer's helped the Boomers? And for the huge amount of debt today's 20-somethings graduate with, what do they get? Lousy career and job prospects. Can you pay your students loans office sweeping floors, pouring coffee or flipping burgers (would you like fries with that)? heck no! And there are simply not enough good career jobs compared to the number of graduates. Why is that? Probably a lot of reasons, no one thing and no simple explanation will really do. A short list would have to include demographics, the general cheapening of labor (including white collar), greater economic imbalance, globalization, etc. But the one thing I think is absolutely untrue is this: It's the fault of the 20 somethings.
Moving beyond education, how have we viewed our legacy to the younger generations? Given a choice between lifestyle sacrifices versus denial on global warming, we have chosen denial. Given a choice between painful spending and tax increases versus more spending and tax cuts, we have chosen the latter. When choosing between funding public pension plans or underfunding and spending more today, we have chosen the latter. And pretty much every time we need to choose between the welfare of future generations and our personal welfare today, we choose the latter.
So, are 20-somethings cynical and unmotivated? Perhaps. And I would argue likely with good cause. But the next time you (and by this I mean us - Boomers and X'ers) want to blame someone for the prospects of 20 somethings, go get a mirror. Or perhaps I should say that when you decide to blame Gen Y/Millenials, I think their proper reply should be should be "Shut the fuck up assholes!"
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Godless Cowards? Nonsense!
Sorry if this is politically incorrect or Un-American to point out; but I am tired to no end of politicians (and others) constantly referring to 9-11 terrorists as "Godless Cowards". This assertion is not just false (and rather obviously so), it's offensive. Let me explain my point.
But first, a disclaimer but should not be necessary but may well be even so: I think these guys did a terrible, abominable, horrible thing. I have little sympathy for them or their moronic, testosterone fueled world view. Their way of looking at the world is revolting to me. Having said that...
Were they "Godless"? Well, they committed suicide quite deliberately in order to please God. And their last words word likely something like "God is great!". The whole motivation appears to based on their interpretation of their duty as Muslims engages in holy war. How is this Godless? I can only only think of a couple of explanations for this assertion: "Incorrect religion = Godless" OR "Bad deeds = Godless". I am not sure which one of these is more obviously wrong or offensive. But I can admit that if you are so sure of your own religion that you are willing to call people of other faiths "Godless", then I think you are full of shit. And I don't apologize for that. You are full of shit. By the way, feel free to call me Godless; because I am.
But if your position is that because the deed itself caused great misery and seems to be evil and twisted that therefore the agents of it were Godless, I still don't get you. Were the pilots who dropped nukes on Japan in 1945 Godless? Were the numerous slave owners in the American Deep South Godless? Were the Crusaders Godless? Was the Great Inquisitor Godless? Were the witch burners in Colonial Mass Godless? The Aztecs who sacrificed people Godless? I would submit that asserting "Bad deeds = Godless" presumes that God loving people never do bad things and/or that only atheists are capable of evil (which again seems to suggest that most religions are atheism in disguise?). I find this offensive. I and I am not sure I should even need to explain why it's offensive.
What about "cowards"? I find this one even harder to comprehend. They killed themselves for their cause, no? This is not the same as someone not wanting to face the music for their crimes as thus killing themselves. Their crime was completely intertwined with killing themselves. And the evidence does not suggest that they were ashamed of their "crimes"; rather, they expected great rewards in heaven from God himself for their courageous deed. Let me ask this, which of these are cowards are which are courageous heroes?
Why?
I am not sure any of these people were cowards. They had convictions and followed through on them at possibly great cost to themselves. Perhaps one could argue that "cowardice" relates to the ignobility of the cause? That would be a new definition I think. Put another way, I just don't get how anyone gets "coward" out of the 9/11 terrorists. Are the people asserting this so insecure that they cannot admit that the enemy is brave too?
So, why is it offensive? Because I think it presumes something like this: If someone does something I really don't like, they must not have the correct (read my) religion and they are cowards (even though by any other measure they are not). Well, OK, congratulations on your Godhood.
But first, a disclaimer but should not be necessary but may well be even so: I think these guys did a terrible, abominable, horrible thing. I have little sympathy for them or their moronic, testosterone fueled world view. Their way of looking at the world is revolting to me. Having said that...
Were they "Godless"? Well, they committed suicide quite deliberately in order to please God. And their last words word likely something like "God is great!". The whole motivation appears to based on their interpretation of their duty as Muslims engages in holy war. How is this Godless? I can only only think of a couple of explanations for this assertion: "Incorrect religion = Godless" OR "Bad deeds = Godless". I am not sure which one of these is more obviously wrong or offensive. But I can admit that if you are so sure of your own religion that you are willing to call people of other faiths "Godless", then I think you are full of shit. And I don't apologize for that. You are full of shit. By the way, feel free to call me Godless; because I am.
But if your position is that because the deed itself caused great misery and seems to be evil and twisted that therefore the agents of it were Godless, I still don't get you. Were the pilots who dropped nukes on Japan in 1945 Godless? Were the numerous slave owners in the American Deep South Godless? Were the Crusaders Godless? Was the Great Inquisitor Godless? Were the witch burners in Colonial Mass Godless? The Aztecs who sacrificed people Godless? I would submit that asserting "Bad deeds = Godless" presumes that God loving people never do bad things and/or that only atheists are capable of evil (which again seems to suggest that most religions are atheism in disguise?). I find this offensive. I and I am not sure I should even need to explain why it's offensive.
What about "cowards"? I find this one even harder to comprehend. They killed themselves for their cause, no? This is not the same as someone not wanting to face the music for their crimes as thus killing themselves. Their crime was completely intertwined with killing themselves. And the evidence does not suggest that they were ashamed of their "crimes"; rather, they expected great rewards in heaven from God himself for their courageous deed. Let me ask this, which of these are cowards are which are courageous heroes?
- Kamikaze pilots
- An American Pilot who during the battle of Midway plunged his crippled plane down the smoke stack of a Jap ship
- The American soldier who stood his ground spraying the enemy with machine gun fire while his compatriots fled knowing we would certainly be killed (and was)
- Pakistani Muslims who attacked Mumbai knowing they would be killed
- The Japanese Soldiers who charged American positions in Iwo Jima hopelessly outgunned and out manned (sure to die and did)
- Egyptian soldiers who followed orders and were drowned in the Red Sea chasing the Jews.
- Abortion doctor shot in hia kitchen in front of his children via high powered rifles.
- The Christian who pulled the trigger killing the abortion doctor.
- The Communist troops in Vietnam who held their positions (and died) knowing full well that the Americans would eventually blow them up with bombs from the air.
- SS troops who fought ferociously and died in a hopeless battle against the Russians in 1945.
Why?
I am not sure any of these people were cowards. They had convictions and followed through on them at possibly great cost to themselves. Perhaps one could argue that "cowardice" relates to the ignobility of the cause? That would be a new definition I think. Put another way, I just don't get how anyone gets "coward" out of the 9/11 terrorists. Are the people asserting this so insecure that they cannot admit that the enemy is brave too?
So, why is it offensive? Because I think it presumes something like this: If someone does something I really don't like, they must not have the correct (read my) religion and they are cowards (even though by any other measure they are not). Well, OK, congratulations on your Godhood.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
What to get into next?
Not sure where to go next, so many topics I can easily rant on. So I am going to throw out a short list, and hope for some feedback. But of course, it's my blog, so I may ignore your comments and post what I feel like writing about . Nevertheless, I want to know what my readers think would be interesting (assuming anyone cares, but I'll assume that for my personal benefit).
So here it goes:
1) The efficacy of Prayer.
2) The 9/11 terrorists were bad guys. Sure, but they were certainly not "Godless cowards". They were obviously neither Godless nor cowards in fact. So stop saying that they were.
3) Why I don't believe in Zeus ( nor Yahweh, Allah, Buddha, Vishnu, FSM, etc).
Which do you want to hear about?
Side note:
I did have had a list of political topics. But I think it's fair to say that my pet peeves politically have mostly to do with the silly (and very unhelpful) "good versus evil" world view of too many these days. Which in turn leads to hyperbole that is beyond nonsense (e.g. Obama is just like Stalin and Hitler combined). I just don't have the energy right now. Perhaps later.
So here it goes:
1) The efficacy of Prayer.
2) The 9/11 terrorists were bad guys. Sure, but they were certainly not "Godless cowards". They were obviously neither Godless nor cowards in fact. So stop saying that they were.
3) Why I don't believe in Zeus ( nor Yahweh, Allah, Buddha, Vishnu, FSM, etc).
Which do you want to hear about?
Side note:
I did have had a list of political topics. But I think it's fair to say that my pet peeves politically have mostly to do with the silly (and very unhelpful) "good versus evil" world view of too many these days. Which in turn leads to hyperbole that is beyond nonsense (e.g. Obama is just like Stalin and Hitler combined). I just don't have the energy right now. Perhaps later.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Punishment
Today I would like to share my thoughts on the purpose of punishment. In particular, I have thought about over the years, I have concluded that my views are almost certainly a minority view. I am interested in how other people think about the same topic.
What is the purpose of punishment? I can come up with two compelling reasons that I do not think are controversial:
1) To correct behavior
2) To deter others
Some people argue that punishment has dubious value even for the purpose of correcting behavior (as in, there may be better ways), but I think it would hard to maintain that it does not modify behavior. After all, if reaching for a cookie gets your hand slapped, you won't reach cookies ( save when no one is looking perhaps).
The deter others also seems obvious and noncontroversial. After all, I don't need to get my hand slapped if I have seen my friend's hand get slapped.
Is there another purpose? I think most people believe there is. Let me take a quick shot sat it
3) Justice
I think the idea here is that there is some kind of cosmic score keeping and in the end, things need to be balanced. If someone does wrong to others, they "need" to experience some kind of suffering in order to redress "the balance". And if society cannot redress the balance, then God (or Karma, etc) will ultimately.
This is consistent with how our culture thinks about punishment and it is very much woven into our cultural view on crime and punishment. The problem is, I just don't buy it.
Why not? Well, I don't assume that just because something is woven into our culture, that it gets special privilege as to its merit. There may be good reasons why something becomes a cultural norm, we should keep that in mind (the old ways often have more wisdom in them that isn't written on the package). But simply doesn't mean cultural norms should never be questioned.
To help bring out the discussion, let me propose a thought experiment. Let's just take a guy most agree deserved severe punishment. Hitler (you can easily modify this for the rapist monster Castro). Let's suppose you have a time machine (may or may not be shaped like a blue box) and you can transport right the moment before Hitler killed himself in 1945. Furthermore, you have certain technology available that allows you the following options (but only these options):
a) Let history play out (God or Cosmic justice will punish his soul)
b) Save him and turn him over to Allies so that he can be put on trial and punished publicly for his crimes
c) Take him away, place his mind into the body of all 20 million of his victims and let him experience each and every death and suffering. Drop him off on planet Vulcan when done. (history written the same as a)
d) Endowing him with empathy and compassion so that he realizes the magnitudes of his crimes. Then, erase his memory and drop him off on planet Vulcan (history written the same as a).
Which one appealed to you? I think that c appeals to our gut instincts. Likely many will think about it and decide on a, either not wanting to play God or being familiar with what typically happens in time travel Sci Fi. I think b has little or no emotional appeal (am I wrong?). What about d? That would be my choice. What? What about justice? To be honest, I really don't care. I just don't see why further suffering accomplishes anything.
I could go on on this topic, but I hoping to get some feedback. What do you think?
What is the purpose of punishment? I can come up with two compelling reasons that I do not think are controversial:
1) To correct behavior
2) To deter others
Some people argue that punishment has dubious value even for the purpose of correcting behavior (as in, there may be better ways), but I think it would hard to maintain that it does not modify behavior. After all, if reaching for a cookie gets your hand slapped, you won't reach cookies ( save when no one is looking perhaps).
The deter others also seems obvious and noncontroversial. After all, I don't need to get my hand slapped if I have seen my friend's hand get slapped.
Is there another purpose? I think most people believe there is. Let me take a quick shot sat it
3) Justice
I think the idea here is that there is some kind of cosmic score keeping and in the end, things need to be balanced. If someone does wrong to others, they "need" to experience some kind of suffering in order to redress "the balance". And if society cannot redress the balance, then God (or Karma, etc) will ultimately.
This is consistent with how our culture thinks about punishment and it is very much woven into our cultural view on crime and punishment. The problem is, I just don't buy it.
Why not? Well, I don't assume that just because something is woven into our culture, that it gets special privilege as to its merit. There may be good reasons why something becomes a cultural norm, we should keep that in mind (the old ways often have more wisdom in them that isn't written on the package). But simply doesn't mean cultural norms should never be questioned.
To help bring out the discussion, let me propose a thought experiment. Let's just take a guy most agree deserved severe punishment. Hitler (you can easily modify this for the rapist monster Castro). Let's suppose you have a time machine (may or may not be shaped like a blue box) and you can transport right the moment before Hitler killed himself in 1945. Furthermore, you have certain technology available that allows you the following options (but only these options):
a) Let history play out (God or Cosmic justice will punish his soul)
b) Save him and turn him over to Allies so that he can be put on trial and punished publicly for his crimes
c) Take him away, place his mind into the body of all 20 million of his victims and let him experience each and every death and suffering. Drop him off on planet Vulcan when done. (history written the same as a)
d) Endowing him with empathy and compassion so that he realizes the magnitudes of his crimes. Then, erase his memory and drop him off on planet Vulcan (history written the same as a).
Which one appealed to you? I think that c appeals to our gut instincts. Likely many will think about it and decide on a, either not wanting to play God or being familiar with what typically happens in time travel Sci Fi. I think b has little or no emotional appeal (am I wrong?). What about d? That would be my choice. What? What about justice? To be honest, I really don't care. I just don't see why further suffering accomplishes anything.
I could go on on this topic, but I hoping to get some feedback. What do you think?
Monday, September 2, 2013
Psychology and Science Denial Part 2
So, last time I dealt with the mechanisms behind Climate Change denial and psychology. My main point was that people deny Climate Change primarily because of cognitive dissonance and because the threat lacks saliency (and immediacy I should have added). I wonder sometimes whether we would have successfully reduced CFC emissions had the huge hole in the Ozone layer in the Antarctic been discovered much later. That event brought saliency to the whole issue. What will it take for APW? Obviously not Katrina, Sandy, polar ice sheet reduction, the hottest decade in history, etc. We Americans love our SUVs.
But let me switch gears a bit. Instead of asking why people refuse to believe it when science tells them something they don't want to hear, I am going to ask, why do people believe complete nonsense?
I think the answer lies in how we come to the sense of knowing something is true. In the book, "On Being Certain: Believing You are Right Even When You're Not", Robert Burton (a neurologist) proposes that the sense of "knowing" something is true is a sensation in the brain just as pleasure is. He further proposes that we are unaware of why we "know" things are true, we just do. This is because the mechanisms that bring this about are in the subconscious mind. So for example, if someone asks you how you "know" your name, you would be hard pressed to say why. You might make up a story (my parents always called me that), but you don't really know how you know your name. But you do know it. And you know it without a doubt.
Our subconscious brain a marvel of quick heuristic calculations that help us navigate an incredibly complex experience. It instantly sorts out a wide variety of stimuli, and prioritizes which things need to attention of the conscious brain. According to Burton, it also instantly tells us which of our stray thoughts are "real" and what we are "imagining". That is, I can imagine a horse and picture one in front of me, but my brain automatically knows there is not a horse there. Or someone can put a photo of a horse in front of me and same thing: I know it's not really a horse and my conscious brain didn't need to figure that out.
The bottom line is we effortlessly "know" some things are true (or not true). And that sensation is powerful enough that we will almost always trust it more than our reasoning. Put another way, we trust our gut over our head.
Let me add one more important ingredient. Our subconscious brain is fast. It's fast because it uses easy heuristics to reach quick conclusions. One of those short cuts could be characterized as "correlation equals causation". So now take autism. Autism manifest between age 6 months and 3 years. Guess what else happens then? Vaccinations. Now, an upset parent will look for an explanation as to what went wrong. The subconscious brain easily picks up on the correlation. Many parents will say that the "know" it was the vaccination. They have they "know it's true" sensations in their brains.
Now, in a scientifically educated world, this is not so bad, because people will learn to rely on scientist to do things like peer reviewed, double blind experiments before drawing conclusions and setting public policy. But what about a world where science itself has been under relentless undermining? Like, say, the USA. In this case, all theories are need only pass our gut feeling test to have merit. We are free to go with the ones our "gut" tells us to believe. And our "gut" tells all sorts on nonsense.
But let me switch gears a bit. Instead of asking why people refuse to believe it when science tells them something they don't want to hear, I am going to ask, why do people believe complete nonsense?
I think the answer lies in how we come to the sense of knowing something is true. In the book, "On Being Certain: Believing You are Right Even When You're Not", Robert Burton (a neurologist) proposes that the sense of "knowing" something is true is a sensation in the brain just as pleasure is. He further proposes that we are unaware of why we "know" things are true, we just do. This is because the mechanisms that bring this about are in the subconscious mind. So for example, if someone asks you how you "know" your name, you would be hard pressed to say why. You might make up a story (my parents always called me that), but you don't really know how you know your name. But you do know it. And you know it without a doubt.
Our subconscious brain a marvel of quick heuristic calculations that help us navigate an incredibly complex experience. It instantly sorts out a wide variety of stimuli, and prioritizes which things need to attention of the conscious brain. According to Burton, it also instantly tells us which of our stray thoughts are "real" and what we are "imagining". That is, I can imagine a horse and picture one in front of me, but my brain automatically knows there is not a horse there. Or someone can put a photo of a horse in front of me and same thing: I know it's not really a horse and my conscious brain didn't need to figure that out.
The bottom line is we effortlessly "know" some things are true (or not true). And that sensation is powerful enough that we will almost always trust it more than our reasoning. Put another way, we trust our gut over our head.
Let me add one more important ingredient. Our subconscious brain is fast. It's fast because it uses easy heuristics to reach quick conclusions. One of those short cuts could be characterized as "correlation equals causation". So now take autism. Autism manifest between age 6 months and 3 years. Guess what else happens then? Vaccinations. Now, an upset parent will look for an explanation as to what went wrong. The subconscious brain easily picks up on the correlation. Many parents will say that the "know" it was the vaccination. They have they "know it's true" sensations in their brains.
Now, in a scientifically educated world, this is not so bad, because people will learn to rely on scientist to do things like peer reviewed, double blind experiments before drawing conclusions and setting public policy. But what about a world where science itself has been under relentless undermining? Like, say, the USA. In this case, all theories are need only pass our gut feeling test to have merit. We are free to go with the ones our "gut" tells us to believe. And our "gut" tells all sorts on nonsense.
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Psychology and Science Denial Part 1
It's 2013, and it the gap between what scientifically educated people believe and other people believe is getting wider and wider. But that is hardly surprising. I guess what is disheartening is that it has become standard, acceptable and a matter of "choice" to deny science whenever it suits you. Indeed, it's fair to say that science denial is now required if you are going to be a successful Republican politician.
If I had way more energy that I have, and if I enjoyed beating my head against a wall, I would lay out the cases here for Evolution, Climate Change, that hitting your child is bad, that vaccines work, that homeopathy is garbge, etc. But I don't.
So the better question is, why do intelligent and often college educated people believe complete crap? While at the same time they refuse to believe things that the evidence makes abundantly clear? In fact, they'll often believe really crazy things in their denial of the evidence (e.g. global warming is a conspiracy to get government grants).
I am going to take a speculative shot here. It's rooted in psychology of how we think. I do think the answer varies a bit for the items I have listed above, but I am going to apply my limited understanding of the discipline to the above examples.
Cognitive Dissonance is what occurs when we have a conflict between simultaneously held beliefs or between what we want to do and what our reason tells us we ought to do. In either case, we find a way to reduce the dissonance (as it is uncomfortable to us). This can be through dismissing one believe all together, making odd contortions of reason to convince ourselves that there is no dissonance, or making up other "facts" that smooth things over. etc.
So take Climate Change. Contrary to what you hear on Fox, the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that the earth is getting warmer, that a significant contributor to this is the massive amount of C02 we have put into our atmosphere, that the impact of global warming will be bad, and that the evidence is overwhelming. And they have good reason for believing this, it's this thing called science. But here is the problem: The implication of this is that we should reduce our emissions of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. But that would imply a negative economic impact. So here is the dissonance: Between what we want to do (nothing) and we ought to do (reduce CO2).
And viewed this way, you can then understand why the deniers seem to lack coherence in their statements. Because some deny that the Earth is getting hotter at all (check Facebook next snowstorm for example), while other admit the Earth is getting hotter but deny that humans had anything to do with it. Or maybe those things are true, but we don't know for sure. Or, all those things are true but it wont be so bad, so we don't need to do anything. Or all those things are true and it will be bad, but it's too late to make a difference (or even if we reduce our C02, China wont, so it wont matter).
In other words, no matter what, I want to drive my SUV without guilt. So I am going to keep making excuses to do nothing as long as I can. Now, there is the coherence! It's in the conclusion.
And there is another big factor here as well: Saliency. Global Warming is not easy to see or feel. And the impacts are far off in the future. Driving an SUV (my metaphor for doing nothing) feels good, and it feels good now. This is very much analogous to other things we ought (or ought not) do but don't: Save for retirement, eat healthy foods, not smoke, exercise, etc. It's a long list.
Having said all that, I know that the Climate Change deniers will not be persuaded. They'll pick one or more of above excuses and want to argue with me. Don't bother. It's a pointless exercise. My point is that if you do deny Climate Change, it's quite likely because you don't want to make a sacrifice over the matter. Period.
I will follow up on evolution denial, spanking etc on a later date because this is getting too long I fear.
If I had way more energy that I have, and if I enjoyed beating my head against a wall, I would lay out the cases here for Evolution, Climate Change, that hitting your child is bad, that vaccines work, that homeopathy is garbge, etc. But I don't.
So the better question is, why do intelligent and often college educated people believe complete crap? While at the same time they refuse to believe things that the evidence makes abundantly clear? In fact, they'll often believe really crazy things in their denial of the evidence (e.g. global warming is a conspiracy to get government grants).
I am going to take a speculative shot here. It's rooted in psychology of how we think. I do think the answer varies a bit for the items I have listed above, but I am going to apply my limited understanding of the discipline to the above examples.
Cognitive Dissonance is what occurs when we have a conflict between simultaneously held beliefs or between what we want to do and what our reason tells us we ought to do. In either case, we find a way to reduce the dissonance (as it is uncomfortable to us). This can be through dismissing one believe all together, making odd contortions of reason to convince ourselves that there is no dissonance, or making up other "facts" that smooth things over. etc.
So take Climate Change. Contrary to what you hear on Fox, the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that the earth is getting warmer, that a significant contributor to this is the massive amount of C02 we have put into our atmosphere, that the impact of global warming will be bad, and that the evidence is overwhelming. And they have good reason for believing this, it's this thing called science. But here is the problem: The implication of this is that we should reduce our emissions of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. But that would imply a negative economic impact. So here is the dissonance: Between what we want to do (nothing) and we ought to do (reduce CO2).
And viewed this way, you can then understand why the deniers seem to lack coherence in their statements. Because some deny that the Earth is getting hotter at all (check Facebook next snowstorm for example), while other admit the Earth is getting hotter but deny that humans had anything to do with it. Or maybe those things are true, but we don't know for sure. Or, all those things are true but it wont be so bad, so we don't need to do anything. Or all those things are true and it will be bad, but it's too late to make a difference (or even if we reduce our C02, China wont, so it wont matter).
In other words, no matter what, I want to drive my SUV without guilt. So I am going to keep making excuses to do nothing as long as I can. Now, there is the coherence! It's in the conclusion.
And there is another big factor here as well: Saliency. Global Warming is not easy to see or feel. And the impacts are far off in the future. Driving an SUV (my metaphor for doing nothing) feels good, and it feels good now. This is very much analogous to other things we ought (or ought not) do but don't: Save for retirement, eat healthy foods, not smoke, exercise, etc. It's a long list.
Having said all that, I know that the Climate Change deniers will not be persuaded. They'll pick one or more of above excuses and want to argue with me. Don't bother. It's a pointless exercise. My point is that if you do deny Climate Change, it's quite likely because you don't want to make a sacrifice over the matter. Period.
I will follow up on evolution denial, spanking etc on a later date because this is getting too long I fear.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
First Post and an Explanation
OK, first post to this blog. I have long been contemplating a place where, unlike Facebook, I can say what I want about religion and politics. So perhaps I should explain why I DO NOT want to discuss those topics on Facebook. Here it goes.
It's the intersection of several things:
1) If you are a student of cognitive science, you already know that when it comes to emotional topics such as religion and politics, we mostly simply try to find evidence to support what we believe and to undermine those with whom we do not agree. Furthermore, the more one argues with us, the more "convinced" we become of our position. In short, little is accomplished by arguing about this stuff. By the way, I say "we" and "our" because this is not a liberal/conservative thing, it's a human thing and the research shows this.
2) People also suffer from the affect heuristic (mental shorcut). Essentially, it says that if someone pleases you emotionally, it's easier simply to assume that they are "good" on every topic. Conversely, if they upset you, it's easier to just assume that they are "bad" on every topic. So, for example, if you say to someone "Hitler loved children and dogs" (he did), it likely would create mental discomfort for them. It's far easier (and takes less mental energy) to simply assume that Hitler was just evil all around.
This has an important implication for American politics. It means that it is apparently not easy to disagree with George Bush or Barak Obama about what is the best public policy for America while simultaneously admitting that they are generally good people who care about America, love their children, are honest and intelligent, etc. Far easier to be seduced into the "they are completely EVIL and STUPID" viewpoint. This actually takes *less* mental effort. Our modern media (FOX, MSNBC, etc) cater to this mental laziness.
3) The more emotional and angry we are, the more we do not actually listen to what is being said but instead hear what we expect to hear. Witness almost any conversation about race these days where the speaker and the listener are on opposite sides of the black/white divide. Seriously, if you compared what is said to what is heard, it's kind of amazing (in a sad way).
4) I have lots of FB friend who say all sorts of inflammatory and amazingly ignorant things. I value those friendships too much to think anything will be accomplished by pointing out to them their ignorance or offensiveness. They are not likely going to get why what they said is offensive or ignorant, but they will likely get angry. That is not disrespect: see points 1-3.
Well, given all of this, why even bother with this blog? I will tell you why. I simply refuse to give up hope. One should not fail to speak out against stupidity just because one wants to be "nice". I'll stay "nice" on Facebook. That is my privilege and important to me. Important because those that disagree with me need to realize that people like me are not evil incarnate (I know, like the devil I am trying to deceive you). And I do think most of us share similar values - we want our kids to do well, we want hard workers to succeed, we want criminals to fail, we want fewer dysfunctional people with no hope, we want America to stay free, etc. But we have serious disagreements about what all those things mean in the fine print and what are the best ways to effect the best outcomes via public policy. That is OK. We need dialogue around these things, not finger pointing and vilification. At the same time, one needs to be able to call a spade a spade (so to speak). Where would we be if Thomas Paine, Voltaire and Jefferson had pulled verbal punches?
So this will be my place to rant. If you don't like what I say here, reply here or don't visit. Leave my FB page out of it. Having said that, while I plan to give wide latitude to people who vehemently disagree, my tolerance is not unlimited. Stay respectful, avoid ad hominid attacks, and there will likely be no issues.
It's the intersection of several things:
1) If you are a student of cognitive science, you already know that when it comes to emotional topics such as religion and politics, we mostly simply try to find evidence to support what we believe and to undermine those with whom we do not agree. Furthermore, the more one argues with us, the more "convinced" we become of our position. In short, little is accomplished by arguing about this stuff. By the way, I say "we" and "our" because this is not a liberal/conservative thing, it's a human thing and the research shows this.
2) People also suffer from the affect heuristic (mental shorcut). Essentially, it says that if someone pleases you emotionally, it's easier simply to assume that they are "good" on every topic. Conversely, if they upset you, it's easier to just assume that they are "bad" on every topic. So, for example, if you say to someone "Hitler loved children and dogs" (he did), it likely would create mental discomfort for them. It's far easier (and takes less mental energy) to simply assume that Hitler was just evil all around.
This has an important implication for American politics. It means that it is apparently not easy to disagree with George Bush or Barak Obama about what is the best public policy for America while simultaneously admitting that they are generally good people who care about America, love their children, are honest and intelligent, etc. Far easier to be seduced into the "they are completely EVIL and STUPID" viewpoint. This actually takes *less* mental effort. Our modern media (FOX, MSNBC, etc) cater to this mental laziness.
3) The more emotional and angry we are, the more we do not actually listen to what is being said but instead hear what we expect to hear. Witness almost any conversation about race these days where the speaker and the listener are on opposite sides of the black/white divide. Seriously, if you compared what is said to what is heard, it's kind of amazing (in a sad way).
4) I have lots of FB friend who say all sorts of inflammatory and amazingly ignorant things. I value those friendships too much to think anything will be accomplished by pointing out to them their ignorance or offensiveness. They are not likely going to get why what they said is offensive or ignorant, but they will likely get angry. That is not disrespect: see points 1-3.
Well, given all of this, why even bother with this blog? I will tell you why. I simply refuse to give up hope. One should not fail to speak out against stupidity just because one wants to be "nice". I'll stay "nice" on Facebook. That is my privilege and important to me. Important because those that disagree with me need to realize that people like me are not evil incarnate (I know, like the devil I am trying to deceive you). And I do think most of us share similar values - we want our kids to do well, we want hard workers to succeed, we want criminals to fail, we want fewer dysfunctional people with no hope, we want America to stay free, etc. But we have serious disagreements about what all those things mean in the fine print and what are the best ways to effect the best outcomes via public policy. That is OK. We need dialogue around these things, not finger pointing and vilification. At the same time, one needs to be able to call a spade a spade (so to speak). Where would we be if Thomas Paine, Voltaire and Jefferson had pulled verbal punches?
So this will be my place to rant. If you don't like what I say here, reply here or don't visit. Leave my FB page out of it. Having said that, while I plan to give wide latitude to people who vehemently disagree, my tolerance is not unlimited. Stay respectful, avoid ad hominid attacks, and there will likely be no issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)