More UCLA Weirdness

I wrote another letter to the editor of the Daily Bruin recently. Of course this didn't get published either.

I read your article "Professor discusses nature of Islam" regarding
the discussion "Extremism and Islam", which I also attended.

I am surprised that there was no mention of the way the professor responded to the first question posed during the question and answer portion of the talk. The professor's response was, to say the least, belligerent and confrontational. I do not think it was a coincidence that the moderator decided to end the question and answer portion after just one question, claiming time restraints.

It was difficult for me to reconcile his speech claiming that "The core values of Islam are mercy, compassion and humility" while his response was so much less than exemplary. Personally I was shocked and felt that the outburst detracted from the professor's credibility. To make no mention of this in your article makes me wonder about the objectivity of your report.

Obsession

Last night I went to see the movie Obsession on campus, hosted by Students for Peace and Justice. Nonie Darwish, founder of Arabs for Israel and featured in the film, spoke to the audience afterwards. Overall it seemed the main point of the movie was to make strong parallels between radical Islam and Nazi Germany. By the end I distinctly felt that the implication was that war is the only logical solution, although it was never stated directly.

Watching many clips of how children are indoctrinated to despise the United States definitely had me thinking about my recent thoughts about belief. I certainly don't think that war is the answer to this kind of situation, but then the question becomes, what is? Education? Information? The invention of the internet has certainly been a revolution of sorts. Perhaps it can continue to enable global mind-change.

Something else happened that night which really left an impression on me, so much so I wrote a letter to the editor of the Daily Bruin:

I attended the showing of "Obsession" on the night of the 24^th. As people were filing in, there were people from other groups handing out informational flyers to those waiting in line. I took one and put it in my backpack, looking forward to reading it more closely later. What surprised me was that upon entering, our bags were searched and this flyer was removed — I was told that I could not bring it into the theater. The response to my look of astonishment was that it was policy and that I could retrieve it after the show.

While I imagine there could be valid motivations for UCLA to make this kind of policy, I found the situation ironic considering that presumably the goal of hosting such events is to educate by showing different sides of issues and letting people decide for themselves. Especially disconcerting was the fact that as I left, the confiscated flyers were nowhere to be found. When I posed the question of where they were to the security guard enforcing their confiscation, he had no idea.

I hope to find out the history of this policy. And I would appreciate it if the groups that endeavor to enforce it would do so with greater respect and integrity.

This I ... Believe?

My most recent attempt at describing where I stand on faith these days has been a criticism of the Christian concept of salvation being dependent on belief in Jesus. By and large all who call themselves Christian have a wide spectrum of beliefs regarding salvation, but at the core of them all is this one. Some doctrines hold that there are additional requirements for salvation (baptism, confirmation, etc.), but all these of course depend on some kind of belief in Jesus in order for them to be meaningful, so I think this argument can safely address most of Christianity, mainstream or otherwise.

Now here is how my travels have brought me to a place where this no longer makes sense: I have come to find that believing (or disbelieving) something is not a matter of choice. While this conclusion has been formulating in my mind over the past few years, I came upon the same idea expressed much more eloquently by both Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, and their arguments helped me to frame what I was feeling into words.

All of us have had something that we believed to be true at one time, only to find out later that we were wrong. For those who always get things right the first time, think of the many concepts that were once widely held but then later refuted — for example, the idea that the earth was flat. For a long period of time people could not help but believe that the world was flat. And yet, when more and more evidence appeared indicating otherwise, eventually it overwhelmed people to where again they could not help but believe that the world was round. Could they, indeed could we, still "choose" to believe that the world is flat? I suppose we could, but at that point we call this delusion or denial which is understood to be an unhealthy way to approach things. Certainly this is not the sort of faith that Christians would want to advocate anyway. In a sense it is making a distinction between what we "choose" to believe (voluntary) and what we "really" believe (involuntary). So even in this there is concept of something that we cannot help but believe.

If belief truly is involuntary, then how does the concept of a salvation based on belief fit into things? If belief is not something that we can choose, then salvation is not something we can choose either, and the point of exhorting people to choose it would be nonsensical. This to me is a conflict within the framework of Christianity that is beyond recovery.

Newtonian physics was a model that worked for a long time, but when Einstein came along he helped us see that the model fell apart when describing things approaching the speed of light; a new model was needed. In my experience Christianity has this same feel to it — I accepted it because as a model it made the most sense with what I saw and knew at the time. Belief as a choice was one key point that I accepted whole-heartedly; indeed I felt that anyone who chose not to believe was simply evading responsibility. Now however, I feel the model breaking down, this point of belief being one of many examples. Psychology, sociology, and science in general are better, more powerful models of describing the world, and they have proved more fruitful for my life in general.

Now I brought the idea of belief being involuntary up with Ben and he raised the interesting point that if belief is involuntary, that is, simply a product of experiences, then all choice is simply a product of experiences as well, since choice is determined by beliefs. Thus, he argues, the original assertion necessarily implies a deterministic world.

And this really got me thinking in a lot of different ways. Initially my response is to say that choice is not directly determined by beliefs, but that within a certain set of beliefs there are still an enormous, perhaps infinite, number of choices available to a person. While I think this is a reasonable idea, I also note that a deterministic world is not outside the (or my) realm of possibility. As my education is in computer science, this kind of thinking is not unusual. The theory that the world is in fact some kind of computer simulation has already been put forth, in fact.

What Ben's question really raises for me is the need for a closer examination of the concept of "choice." I haven't thought about it extensively but perhaps a materialist world — where the brain behaves according to rules of chemical reactions — denies the idea of choice altogether. What if historically "choice" was simply the label we used to describe the mysterious machinations that people undergo, producing behavior? Maybe it was simply our tool to describe what we could not yet explain accurately, on the level of "soul." Perhaps now we have a better model and so we should reexamine what choice means. After all, as I have brought up before, we did not choose to be born into this world. Is it that difficult to accept that choice as we know it is some kind of mysterious illusion?

The idea of a deterministic world is somewhat unnerving, I think because our traditional understanding of choice is so pervasive. It's interesting how I (and probably most people) immediately equate the obliteration of choice as a concept with a loss of rights, or some kind of authoritarianism, or as somehow turning us into robots. I suppose I may eventually quell my initial unease with relinquishing my definition of choice and wholeheartedly embrace the idea of a deterministic world. For now though I will consider it undetermined, *ba dum bump*.

Absolute Morality

This post continues my discussion with Kip by elaborating my perspective on the existence of an absolute morality.

There was a time when I believed in a sense of absolute right and wrong, but since then I have come to change my position on this. The following are some of the logical steps I went through while contemplating this concept. I will begin with the initial premise of C.S. Lewis, which I subscribed to first.

The Premise

Lewis reasoned that since most people accept that some religions are "better" than others, then there must exist some sort of ultimate "best" religion that these comparisons are in a sense "pointing" to. This made sense to me, as did his subsequent claim that Christianity was the religion that best fit the bill, based on other reasoning which I won't get into. In fact Lewis used this universal sense of morality as evidence of God.

Perspective on Good and Evil

Later I came upon a new approach to the concept of evil. Instead of a looking at good and evil as two equivalently manifest ends of the morality spectrum, doesn't it make more sense to define "evil" with respect to good, that is, as the absence of good? This is comparable to how darkness is not a true physical entity, but merely an abstract concept describing the absence of light. I contemplated whether the devil exists, a debate common in Catholic and even Jewish theological circles.

Judgment, and its By-Product, Guilt

The psychological perspective brought me to the point that really made the difference. In reading How People Grow I started to see how judgment and guilt do not benefit a person in that they do not elicit a sustained change in behavior. They may work in the short-term, but in the bigger picture they inevitably do more harm than good. This truth struck with a real resonance because evidence of it was all around me, and even included me, as I had been deeply involved in a group that used both judgment and guilt (unconsciously, in my opinion) as instrumental parts of its practice.

Instead, the more powerful concept that elicits lasting behavior modification is the realization of consequences. When a person realizes how his behavior causes pain to those around him, he wants to change. This presents a more meaningful and effective motivation for change than "because it's the right thing to do."

In their book Cloud and Townsend still believe in the concept of judgment but assert that it is reserved for God alone — it is not meant to be wielded among mortals. I started to wonder though, what might happen if I did not assume God existed in the first place.

The Thought Experiment

The following thought experiment further convinced me — consider the scenario of a man alone on a desert island. In this context, is this man subject to judgment of right and wrong? What kind of universal law could you try to enforce upon him? This implies that law is a purely relational artifact; it only has meaning in the context of two (or more) entities.

Thus the existence of absolute morality and the existence of God are equivalent assumptions. Therefore, one cannot use one to prove the other without creating a circular argument. Of course if they are equivalent, then proving that absolute morality does not exist is as impossible as proving God does not exist.

Although disproving the existence of absolute morality is impossible theoretically, I believe that there is another reason to abandon the idea of it entirely.

Absolute Morality Unattainable

In practical terms, one could never profess having a grasp of absolute morality anyway. Even if there were a source of revelation such as the bible which contained some definition of it, it would still require interpretation by humans in order to understand it, which is by definition fallible. We need only look at the history of Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, to see several tragic early approximations of a purported absolute truth. The real danger is in assuming that we are more "sincere" in our faith than the early believers and therefore beyond making the same errors of interpretation.

Belief in Absolute Morality Dangerous?

Another interesting thing to think about is whether a belief in an absolute morality is actually detrimental, aside from the actual veracity of the claim. I assert that even if such a thing exists, believing that it exists will inevitably entice someone at some point into thinking that he has attained it. If (or perhaps, when) a better perspective comes along, convincing this person that an improvement exists could prove difficult, perhaps even impossible.

Even from the theological point of view, it seems like the "pride before the fall" scenario all over again. In other words, humility would dictate that we leave ourselves open to the possibility that we could be wrong in any particular area.

But perhaps in practical terms there is no difference in saying "there is an absolute truth, but I will never attain it," versus "there is no absolute truth, but I will strive endlessly to find what is better." Either way the point of real consequence is that we should never feel as if we have reached the absolute best policy on how to behave in any situation.

Apologies that this post ran so long; hopefully it's not too incoherent. I did not even delve into moral relativism, which, without having studied it extensively, I imagine I subscribe to. My guess is that The God Delusion, which I have just started reading, will express some of these same ideas more cogently.

Unhelpful Books (ongoing)

There's a part of me that really, really enjoys criticizing, so as long as I'm compiling a list of books I've enjoyed it's probably appropriate to have a list of books that I didn't enjoy, enough to want to mention it anyway. At least it could generate discussion, no?

Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, Gray - I know some people swear by this book but I really did not find it very enlightening. (*pause for snide personal attack directed at blogger and the current quality of his relationships with women*) Certainly the first few chapters are striking in that they very accurately characterize some typical behaviors of men and women. But the reasoning behind them is very generalizing and seems a very blunt instrument with which to assess all of humanity. Also the remaining chapters seem to be very repetitive, as well as contain several lists of characterizations of men and women that seemed to me quite arbitrary.

Another criticism that a friend brought up is that the author is divorced. While I personally would not want to lay too much judgment on such a circumstance, it is an interesting point to bring up considering the book is meant to educate its audience in relational matters. Incidentally, the woman that Gray divorced happens to be Barbara de Angelis, another author whose work I have read and commented on, and actually enjoyed.

Books (ongoing)

I want to make a list of books that I have helped me over the years, both to share and to record for myself. I welcome comments on these selections, and would love to hear about the books that have inspired you, motivated you, or opened your mind. This is an ongoing post so with updates the post date will update as well.

Posted 12/19/06:

Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman - The most interesting concept that this book introduced to me was the idea that as far as the evolutionary time-line goes, man has relied on his emotional responses far longer (perhaps one million years) than his ability to communicate (perhaps 10,000 years) for survival. Thus it is to be expected that at some level our emotions would tend to get the better of us without careful development of emotional control and maturity.^* Goleman also gives quite a few explanations for the physiological responses we exhibit when experiencing the emotions common to all. For example:

With fear blood goes to the large skeletal muscles, such as in the legs, making it easier to flee — and making the face blanch as blood is shunted away from it (creating the feeling that the blood "runs cold"). At the same time, the body freezes, if only for a moment, perhaps allowing time to gauge whether hiding might be a better reaction. Circuits in the brain's emotional centers trigger a flood of hormones that put the body on general alert, making it edgy and ready for action, and attention fixates on the threat at hand, the better to evaluate what response to make.

I find his reasoning very enlightening as it gave a lot of rationale behind the expressions of emotion that recognize so vividly yet never thought to wonder why they are just so.

The majority of the book is essentially a call to revolutionize the curriculum of standardized teaching to better equip youth for the emotional challenges that they face in today's world. While admirable, I found myself skeptical of the book's ability to reform the current state of society which seems to leave the education of such subjects to community and family. Nevertheless it is a very illuminating work.

---

* Incidentally a similar line of reasoning was also brought up in an artificial intelligence paper that I reported on for a class recently, Intelligence without Representation. In it Brooks argues that most of evolution has been spent figuring out how to interact and respond to a dynamic environment, whereas the typical problem-solving behavior was developed in a fraction of the time in comparison. His argument is that the true basis of intelligence is in the former, rather than the latter, which at the time was where most artificial intelligence work was being focused.

Posted 4/28/05:

God Will Make a Way, Cloud & Townsend - See my commentary in a different post.

Posted 8/14/04:

The Disciplined Life, Taylor - Almost everyone I know really hated this book, but I really enjoyed it for some reason. I think in some weird way it empowered me. I guess I feel like I found a lot of validation for some of the things I tend to do naturally.

The Making of a Man of God, Redpath - It's been a while since I have read this one so I don't remember the specifics of why I liked it so much. Mostly it has great insights into David's life and heart.

Humility, Murray - A very humbling book indeed.

A Tale of Three Kings, Edwards - A great study of the enemy within yourself.

Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis - There are a lot of C. S. Lewis writings that I love, and I think this one compilation is the most valuable. I consider Lewis a quite convincing apologetic.

Trusting God, Bridges - A good answer to the question, "Why do bad things happen to good people." It's one of those paradoxes that you have to hold in constant ... I can't think of the word. Anyway I remember my perspective on the subject shifting subtly while reading this.

How People Grow, Cloud & Townsend - The Shoffs had us read this as a leadership group a few years ago. It was so revolutionary for me that I had to read it about three times to really get it.

Boundaries, Cloud & Townsend - How People Grow made references to this book, so I decided to read it too. There is some overlap, but this one is probably more accessible and straightforward. It's probably where I would have started if I did it all over again.

Boundaries in Dating, Cloud & Townsend - Again, there's some overlap here, but there are some very useful insights specific to dating and romantic relationships. Good stuff.

Making Small Groups Work, Cloud & Townsend - This is a pretty short book that tends to have a lot of "lists", which I am not that fond of, but nevertheless it is a great tool for practically implementing the concepts of the other books in the context of small group. Also there is a section on listening that I found to be completely revolutionary.

The Road Less Travelled, Peck - This book has several interesting insights and perspectives on life and human evolution and such. It does go off in the deep-end at certain points, though. While reading this book I wasn't sure of Peck's precise religious beliefs because he seems to approach from mostly a psychological and secular standpoint. I came to find out (in the next book) that he does indeed profess to be Christian.

The Different Drum, Peck - This is sort of a sequel to The Road Less Travelled. I'm reading this one right now, and it's very good so far.