Free Will and Suffering
Christians typically use the free-will argument to address the problem of suffering: Suffering exists because we humans have the free-will to sin and cause suffering; God gave us free-will so we wouldn't be mere robots, and can freely choose to follow or disobey God; It had to be one or the other, free-will or robots.
This argument is a decent attempt to shield God from being responsible for suffering, but most people, including several Christian philosophers I've read, acknowledge that it isn't a slam dunk. The problem of suffering remains a theological and philosophical problem.
The main problem is that the free-will argument includes a rule: there can either be free-will or robotic humans. If God had to operate within this rule then he is not ultimately God, because he is subject to some external rule outside himself. If God did not have to operate within this rule, then he could have created infinite alternative rules which do not result in so much needless suffering.
Along the same lines, the apologists cosmological argument states God is the beginning of all things, the first uncaused cause. God existed "before" anything else material or non-material existed, including evil. Then God acted, performing the first cause from which all subsequent causes and effects trace. This first act eventually resulted in, among everything else, a new thing called evil. If God's original act of creation is the ultimate first cause of everything, it is necessarily the ultimate first cause of evil. To conclude that free-will caused evil is to neglect the question of what caused free-will, and specifically our particular brand of free-will.
If God is the first-cause, then everything, including evil, must causally trace back to God.
Free Will and Salvation
Christianity claims that the paramount decision facing all humans is whether or not to follow Jesus, upon which our salvation depends, and we have free-will to make that decision. The problem with this claim is that it's unclear whether Jesus really exists, which makes it unclear whether "following" him is really the right thing to do. So the decision to follow Jesus is actually a secondary issue, wholly contingent upon a guess as to whether Jesus exists. This could be forgiven were Jesus' existence largely the more rational guess, but most of the world finds the opposite is the case. Most of the world is sincerely guessing that Jesus doesn't exist, not because they will to do what is wrong, but because they will to do what is right!
Because of this, I find that "free-guess" is more applicable to the Christian view of salvation than "free-will". Let me elaborate with an analogy.
It would be like God placed all humans in a grove in the middle of an enormous forest. To exit the forest, there are a thousand paths radiating outward from the grove, each traversing different terrain, each presenting different challenges and rewards, some of which intersect other paths at various points. Each path takes a lifetime to traverse. At the end of each path is a unique exit door from the forest, which we must enter upon arrival. Nobody can see what's on the other side of the door until they themselves enter. The catch is that one of these doors leads to eternal Paradise, all the others lead to eternal Prison, and God has not clearly marked the paths.
Rather, the humans instinctively congregate into numerous feuding factions with competing ideas about which path leads to the door of Paradise, many claiming to have received this information from God. Now, it would be silly to say that God has given them free-will to choose Paradise or Prison, because he's concealed these outcomes behind a barrier of mystery and unknowing. Rather than choosing between Paradise and Prison, God has left them to guess which path goes were. If a human cries out, "Lord, I choose Paradise, no matter the sacrafice!" God responds (if not verbally, then through silence), "That's not how it works, now guess a path." and leaves him/her subject to the pursuasive power of the numerous factions. Not suprisingly, the majority of the humans end up picking the wrong path, mostly by an unlucky guess.
When an unlucky souls open a door to eternal Prison, is God to say, "This was your choice, you should have chosen Paradise. Now face the consequences of your decision"? That doesn't make any sense. The vast majority willed to choose Paradise with all their hearts, they simply didn't know which path to take and were forced to guess.
In order to have free-will rather than free-guessing in the forest analogy, the paths must be marked. Not by other fallible humans on the same journey, but by God, who alone has knowledge of where each trail ultimately leads. We must understand the decision in front of us and choose our fate accordingly. Knowing then which path leads to Paradise, we can choose to either follow that path no matter how treacherous and painful the journey, or we can choose take an alternative path because it looks temporarily easier or self-gratifying. That would be true free-will.
Despite the countless man-made signs screaming out "This Way! God Told Me!", God has not marked the path. Salvation, if there be such a thing, wouldn't plausibly depend on an ill-informed guess. The concept of free-will doesn't add much rationality to the Christian view of salvation, because the Christian view of salvation depends ultimately on a free-guess.
Free Will and the Bible
Free will is used to defend the Bible-based theory that there exists a good, omniscient, omnipotent god. In order to explain the apparent lack of this god's intervention in the world today (especially with regard to suffering), Free Will is argued. However, the Bible is a collection of stories which depict God heavily intervening in the world, thereby interfering with human Free Will. So Free Will, while used to support the Bible's theory that god exists, doesn't have much ground in the Bible's depiction of that god.
Consider just about any Bible story, such as Jonah and the whale, Noah's Ark, Tower of Babel, the parting of the Red Sea, the walls of Jericho, the prophets, the Ten Commandments, Jesus' miracles, etc. They all depict an all-powerful god intervening in our world, obstructing human free-will in some manner.
Today when Christians attempt to explain horrible realities such as Sierra Lamar's tragic abduction, they'll often say "Well, God gave her abductor Free Will." There are currently thousands of people praying that Sierra Lamar turns up alive. If, tragically, the police's suspicions prove correct and she has been murdered, many Christians will probably use similar Free Will arguments to help explain why God didn't answer their prayers, intervening and saving the young girl from her captor.
But again the Bible is full of stories of God doing exactly so: freeing the Israelites from Egypt, giving Sampson supernatural powers over his enemies, freeing Peter from prison, handing over numerous enemies in battle, promising that enemies will be crushed.
It seems unreasonable to use Free Will to defend the apparent lack of intervention of the god depicted in the Bible, when that god is depicted as intervening over and over again in dramatic visible ways.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Monday, January 2, 2012
Death - Motivation for Belief
A year has passed since my deconversion, and I feel I'm beginning to better understand the motivation for belief in Jesus. For many people, belief must provide something that non-belief doesn't offer. Until recently, I'd always believed and so couldn't make the comparison.
My latest understanding has come through contemplating death, which can be very depressing. If death is the end, then the following brief list is true:
Upon death,
* I can no longer enjoy the people I love and cherish. I'm unaware of them, thoroughly severed from them forever. I am dead to them and they are dead to me.
* I cannot participate in the lives of my descendants, whom I've worked so hard for. I can't share in their hopes, joys, successes, or struggles.
* Everything that matters to me will no longer matter to me.
* Everything I've worked for will be gone from me.
* I have not even memories to ponder.
* All experience ceases. There is no me. I don't exist and have no awareness that I ever did.
If that's the truth, I don't blame anyone for saying "fuck the truth."
If that's the truth, it may still be better to believe something else.
The above list is unacceptable to many people's minds, and understandably so. It's bleak. It's at odds with the innate optimism that countless studies have identified in the human species.
Optimism gives us motivation to put forth effort and take potentially beneficial risks. Optimism not only improves our health, but has helped our species evolve. Optimism says my future will be better than my past. The list says that my future is ultimately void.
Optimism is a vital quality, and must be maintained. If the above list destroys my optimism, then I'm much better off rejecting the list regardless of whether or not it's true. Having decided that the list is unacceptable, what alternative belief should I replace it with? Well, I'd turn to a belief that offers hope, that motivates me to behave the way I think is right, a belief I can have in common with others, and a belief which values an intellectual basis rather than being unabashedly delusional. In this context, Christianity is a great option.
I'm convinced that rejection of the above list (or the likes) is the most common basis for turning to belief in Jesus, much more common than being won over intellectually by the arguments of Christian apologists. I am convinced that the primary effect of Christian apologetics is not to persuade non-believers, but to reassure believers that Christianity is not anti-intellectual. It is the fear of death and need for optimism which first motivates us to believe, and apologetics which help us feel like our belief is not a mere psychosis, especially given the intellectual attacks from the outside.
In the absence of such a motivation to believe, I don't think Christian apologetics alone would hold sway with many people. To those who aren't otherwise motivated to believe, the proposition of an ancient human deity sounds silly, and the supporting arguments offered are uncompelling. But given the motivation of rejecting the above list, the proposition is appealing. One can look for the merit in the argument rather than the loophole, and take the affirmative side: Yes, Jesus rose and gave us eternal life!
So it is not my mission deconvert people. Even if religion is simply the "opium of the masses", let's not forget that opium is a highly effective pain reliever. Death is a disease we all have, and knowledge of our impending death is a very painful symptom. Religion can be a great treatment. The tough part for me is balancing condoning religious belief and opposing the nastier effects of belief like bigotry and excessive absurdity.
My latest understanding has come through contemplating death, which can be very depressing. If death is the end, then the following brief list is true:
Upon death,
* I can no longer enjoy the people I love and cherish. I'm unaware of them, thoroughly severed from them forever. I am dead to them and they are dead to me.
* I cannot participate in the lives of my descendants, whom I've worked so hard for. I can't share in their hopes, joys, successes, or struggles.
* Everything that matters to me will no longer matter to me.
* Everything I've worked for will be gone from me.
* I have not even memories to ponder.
* All experience ceases. There is no me. I don't exist and have no awareness that I ever did.
If that's the truth, I don't blame anyone for saying "fuck the truth."
If that's the truth, it may still be better to believe something else.
The above list is unacceptable to many people's minds, and understandably so. It's bleak. It's at odds with the innate optimism that countless studies have identified in the human species.
Optimism gives us motivation to put forth effort and take potentially beneficial risks. Optimism not only improves our health, but has helped our species evolve. Optimism says my future will be better than my past. The list says that my future is ultimately void.
Optimism is a vital quality, and must be maintained. If the above list destroys my optimism, then I'm much better off rejecting the list regardless of whether or not it's true. Having decided that the list is unacceptable, what alternative belief should I replace it with? Well, I'd turn to a belief that offers hope, that motivates me to behave the way I think is right, a belief I can have in common with others, and a belief which values an intellectual basis rather than being unabashedly delusional. In this context, Christianity is a great option.
I'm convinced that rejection of the above list (or the likes) is the most common basis for turning to belief in Jesus, much more common than being won over intellectually by the arguments of Christian apologists. I am convinced that the primary effect of Christian apologetics is not to persuade non-believers, but to reassure believers that Christianity is not anti-intellectual. It is the fear of death and need for optimism which first motivates us to believe, and apologetics which help us feel like our belief is not a mere psychosis, especially given the intellectual attacks from the outside.
In the absence of such a motivation to believe, I don't think Christian apologetics alone would hold sway with many people. To those who aren't otherwise motivated to believe, the proposition of an ancient human deity sounds silly, and the supporting arguments offered are uncompelling. But given the motivation of rejecting the above list, the proposition is appealing. One can look for the merit in the argument rather than the loophole, and take the affirmative side: Yes, Jesus rose and gave us eternal life!
So it is not my mission deconvert people. Even if religion is simply the "opium of the masses", let's not forget that opium is a highly effective pain reliever. Death is a disease we all have, and knowledge of our impending death is a very painful symptom. Religion can be a great treatment. The tough part for me is balancing condoning religious belief and opposing the nastier effects of belief like bigotry and excessive absurdity.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Apologists 'Failure to Disprove' Defense
I've seen professional debates where the Christian wins the crowd, and I've personally had lengthy debates where my reasoning didn't seem to make a scratch. How do Christians stay afloat in a sea of strong opposing arguments?
From watching numerous debates, I've noticed a common tactic. In response to a strongly reasoned argument against the credibility of Christian beliefs, the Christian shows (rightfully) why the argument fails to disprove his Christian beliefs. The Christian is absolutely correct, the atheist's argument did not disprove Christian beliefs. The Christian thus deems the argument a failure, the debate rolls on, and the crowd is impressed by the intellectual robustness of Christian belief.
But what just happened?
While it appeared persuasive, the Christian has simply fallen back on the fact that no belief (true or false) can ultimately be disproven, whether it's belief in Jesus or mermaids. I call this type of defense the "failure-to-disprove" defense. While sometimes hard to recognize, the failure-to-disprove defense has a couple common signatures:
For example, let me apply the failure-to-disprove defense to support the existence of Santa Claus. Watch the scenarios I invent to maintain my prior belief in Santa Claus despite the onslaught of reason:
Santa-skeptic: "You say Santa is fat, and yet he fits down tiny chimneys."
Santa-believer: "Well, he has extraordinary contortion powers of course. Your argument fails."
Santa-skeptic: "OK... His home cannot be seen at the North Pole."
Santa-believer: "Have you searched every inch of the North Pole? Besides it's probably underground. Your argument fails."
Santa-skeptic: "Even underground, it would be detectable by thermal sensors."
Santa-believer: "Well, again, Santa is no ordinary being. He's fully spiritual in addition to being human. His house isn't necessarily detectable by unbelievers in the physical realm. That'd obviously make things too easy for those who want on his "nice" list out of selfishness. Your argument completely fails to disprove Santa."
Santa-skeptic: "OK... How can he possibly visit every house in one night?"
Santa-believer: "Again, he's extraordinary. And besides, I'm not a fundamentalist, I believe he could have his elves help out. Just because you can't fathom it, that does nothing to disprove my beliefs."
Santa-skeptic: "I know for a fact that my childhood presents came from my parents."
Santa-believer: "But how do you really know that? You can't absolutely know that. Parents have typically lost their Faith in Santa and wouldn't believe even if they saw him or his gifts. And besides, I wouldn't put it past Santa to work through unbelieving parents, instead of his elves, to deliver exactly the gifts Santa had in mind for the believing child. Your argument fails."
As you can see, the Santa skeptic can never win. The believer is deeming every anti-Santa argument a failure, because each one ultimately failed to disprove his belief in Santa Claus. Well, unfortunately for the believer, failure-to-disprove doesn't change the fact that each anti-Santa argument was quite good, and ultimately on-point.
For a real-life example, see William Lane Craig employ the failure-to-disprove defense against Peter Atkins here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco
Atkins makes a couple decent arguments against Christianity (though he's extreme in his view of what science can account for), namely:
The failure-to-disprove tactic is seldom necessary for truthful propositions. For example, I'd never need this tactic if I was trying to convince a skeptic that France is a real place. I'd never need to resort to saying "your argument fails to disprove my proposition that France exists." To do so would be to neglect the wealth of actually-potent arguments and evidence that is available.
The failure-to-disprove tactic is low-quality because it can be used equally to support any silly belief. The tactic reveals nothing about the potency of the opponent's argument, as every argument ultimately fails on some level. When someone relies on the failure-to-disprove tactic, they're unwittingly placing their belief on a reasonableness level with Santa Claus, as the same tactic is used to support both beliefs. Either they're neglecting the better arguments that could be made, or there aren't any better arguments for their belief.
From watching numerous debates, I've noticed a common tactic. In response to a strongly reasoned argument against the credibility of Christian beliefs, the Christian shows (rightfully) why the argument fails to disprove his Christian beliefs. The Christian is absolutely correct, the atheist's argument did not disprove Christian beliefs. The Christian thus deems the argument a failure, the debate rolls on, and the crowd is impressed by the intellectual robustness of Christian belief.
But what just happened?
While it appeared persuasive, the Christian has simply fallen back on the fact that no belief (true or false) can ultimately be disproven, whether it's belief in Jesus or mermaids. I call this type of defense the "failure-to-disprove" defense. While sometimes hard to recognize, the failure-to-disprove defense has a couple common signatures:
- Imaginatively inventing some scenario (usually involving the supernatural) in which one's questionable beliefs are not disproved despite the strength of an opposing argument.
- Appealing to epistemological limitations, "how do we really know anything for sure?!" to avoid disproof.
Either way, the defense boils down to the fact that the argument failed to ultimately disprove the belief. This fact can be used equally to support Christianity, atheism, Heaven's Gate, and Santa Claus.
For example, let me apply the failure-to-disprove defense to support the existence of Santa Claus. Watch the scenarios I invent to maintain my prior belief in Santa Claus despite the onslaught of reason:
Santa-skeptic: "You say Santa is fat, and yet he fits down tiny chimneys."
Santa-believer: "Well, he has extraordinary contortion powers of course. Your argument fails."
Santa-skeptic: "OK... His home cannot be seen at the North Pole."
Santa-believer: "Have you searched every inch of the North Pole? Besides it's probably underground. Your argument fails."
Santa-skeptic: "Even underground, it would be detectable by thermal sensors."
Santa-believer: "Well, again, Santa is no ordinary being. He's fully spiritual in addition to being human. His house isn't necessarily detectable by unbelievers in the physical realm. That'd obviously make things too easy for those who want on his "nice" list out of selfishness. Your argument completely fails to disprove Santa."
Santa-skeptic: "OK... How can he possibly visit every house in one night?"
Santa-believer: "Again, he's extraordinary. And besides, I'm not a fundamentalist, I believe he could have his elves help out. Just because you can't fathom it, that does nothing to disprove my beliefs."
Santa-skeptic: "I know for a fact that my childhood presents came from my parents."
Santa-believer: "But how do you really know that? You can't absolutely know that. Parents have typically lost their Faith in Santa and wouldn't believe even if they saw him or his gifts. And besides, I wouldn't put it past Santa to work through unbelieving parents, instead of his elves, to deliver exactly the gifts Santa had in mind for the believing child. Your argument fails."
As you can see, the Santa skeptic can never win. The believer is deeming every anti-Santa argument a failure, because each one ultimately failed to disprove his belief in Santa Claus. Well, unfortunately for the believer, failure-to-disprove doesn't change the fact that each anti-Santa argument was quite good, and ultimately on-point.
For a real-life example, see William Lane Craig employ the failure-to-disprove defense against Peter Atkins here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco
Atkins makes a couple decent arguments against Christianity (though he's extreme in his view of what science can account for), namely:
- Science is able to explain things that religions attribute to God
- Humans have desparate motives for belief in God (ie fear & hopelessness)
The failure-to-disprove tactic is seldom necessary for truthful propositions. For example, I'd never need this tactic if I was trying to convince a skeptic that France is a real place. I'd never need to resort to saying "your argument fails to disprove my proposition that France exists." To do so would be to neglect the wealth of actually-potent arguments and evidence that is available.
The failure-to-disprove tactic is low-quality because it can be used equally to support any silly belief. The tactic reveals nothing about the potency of the opponent's argument, as every argument ultimately fails on some level. When someone relies on the failure-to-disprove tactic, they're unwittingly placing their belief on a reasonableness level with Santa Claus, as the same tactic is used to support both beliefs. Either they're neglecting the better arguments that could be made, or there aren't any better arguments for their belief.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Pulling the Plug on Noah's Flood
I used to believe that Noah's Flood was a true story. It had to be, because it's in the Bible. If the Flood didn't actually happen, the Old Testament's truthfulness is hurt. Since the New Testament writings depend completely on the Old Testament's truthfulness, they'd go down with it. For example, Jesus himself likens his second coming to Noah's Flood:
- Luke 17:26-27 And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it shall be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
So Christians have a strong motivation to defend the truthfulness of the Old Testament, including Noah's Flood. But, did the Flood actually happen?
With a little Googling, one quickly gets the impression that today the Flood story is on par with the flat-Earth theory. From perusing the scientific evidence (I'm not a scientist!) it seems the summary is this: a global flood would have utterly devastated the Earth in detectable ways, but the Earth clearly shows a lack of such devastation.
We all saw the destruction wreaked by the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. Imagine how much greater the destruction of a global flood. Not only because it affects the whole planet, but the amount of water battering each location is over a mile deep instead of only a few feet. It would have destroyed all Earth's delicate structures, so that today there would be no delicate structures older than the flood date.
But Earth does have many delicate structures which are older than the Noah story, such as polar ice-caps, coral reefs, stalagmites, and even trees. Most critically, Earth's geologic column and fossil column show a lack of global flood devastation. Earth's strata is precisely in-tact throughout the time-scale when a global flood would have certainly churned it up. Creationists have come up with several "rapid growth" theories to account for the apparent old age of these structures, and to account for the existence of multiple human races (funny that creationists require evolution to defend the flood). It's clear they're committed to their religious conclusions here, not following the evidence.
Geological failings aside, the Noah story makes no sense logistically. Did polar bears swim/travel to the middle East to board the ark, and then swim to Canada afterward? What did carnivorous animals eat on the boat? How did animals from all different climates survive together in one climate for several months? Climate controlled cabins? There's an awful lot of magic involved if Noah's flood actually happened.
My favorite part is, after pulling off the extraordinary feat of keeping all the animals alive on the ark, Noah immediately burns some of them for God, who "smells the soothing aroma" and decides not to destroy things so much anymore.
Many Christians today have acknowledged the implausibility of a global flood, and have resorted to saying it was probably a large local flood. However, the whole premise of the Bible story and the language usage clearly doesn't gel with a local flood. Quoting the Bible:
- Gen 6:6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth...
- Gen 6:17 And behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything in which is the breath of life, from under heaven, everything which is on earth shall perish.
- Gen 8:19 And the water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth; and all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.
- Gen 7:23 ... only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.
- Gen 8:17 "Bring out with you every living thing... that they may breed abundantly on the earth..."
As the story goes, God promises to never again flood the earth. If Noah's flood was indeed just a local flood, God has broken that promise many times now. I think there's no escaping that the Bible tells of a global flood.
I've also heard Christians say that many ancient civilizations have reports of a massive flood. However, these reports obviously pertain to a local flood, otherwise those civilizations would not have survived to write about it. Again, I think the Bible story clearly depicts a global flood.
- God(s) was displeased with man
- God(s) decides to send worldwide flood to kill all living creatures
- God(s) knew of one righteous man
- God(s) ordered this righteous man to build a wooden ark
- The ark was to be multi-storied, sealed with pitch, and have one door
- The righteous man, a few other people, and a sample of all the animals boarded the ark
- A great rain flooded the land and covered the mountains
- The righteous man sent out birds to detect dry land, and the third bird was successful
- The ark landed on a mountain
- The people exited the ark and offered burnt sacrifices to God(s), who smelled the aroma
- God(s) express a changed attitude toward the flooding
- The righteous man is blessed
Christians are aware of the problem that the Epic of Gilgamesh poses, and have made fairly humorous efforts to address it, such as this effort from the Institute for Creation Research (quotes taken from http://www.icr.org/article/noah-flood-gilgamesh)
- "...these two flood accounts, it has been generally agreed that there is an obvious relationship."
- "Dating of the oldest fragments of the Gilgamesh account originally indicated that it was older than the assumed dating of Genesis."
- "The divine inspiration of the Bible would demand that the Genesis account is the correct version."
- "Genesis is viewed for the most part as an historical work, even by many liberal scholars, while the Epic of Gilgamesh is viewed as mythological."
So Noah's Flood story is incompatible with science, logistically silly, requires accepting all sorts of weird theology like God being sorry he created man and being soothed by the smell of burning animals, and is a retelling of older Sumerian mythology. I think the only sound conclusion is that Noah's Flood never happened.
I also now see this story for how disgusting it really is; it's a story of the intentional suffocating of all life. It teaches us of a murderous god who is very disappointed with us and appeased by death and the smell of burning flesh sacrifices. And this is what Christians are teaching children in Sunday schools, using cute cartoons.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Atheist Blogroll
Eyes Open has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Judgement Day, May 21, TODAY! You laugh?
I'm sure you've all heard about Harold Camping's prediction that the rapture will occur tonight, May 21, at about 6pm. His multimillion dollar Oakland CA based radio station, Family Radio, claims they have infallible, absolute Biblical proof, 100% guaranteed, no plan B. A million dollar billboard campaign has posted over a thousand Judgement Day billboards. "Project Caravan" has been traveling in decorated RVs proclaiming the end. It appears as though Camping has convinced hundreds, maybe thousands of believers worldwide, many of whom have made drastic preparations for the end. One man, Jeff Gonzalez, quit his job at Intel. One couple, Jessica and Eddie Ramos, quit their jobs, pulled their life savings out of the bank, and pulled their children out of school.
Quote from Camping:
"How can anyone dare to dispute with the Bible concerning the absolute truth that the beginning of the Day of Judgment together with the Rapture will occur on May 21, 2011?"
http://www.familyradio.com/PDFS/ip_en.pdf
Quote from a Camping follower:
"I'm positive that the same question (what if you wake up on May 22?) was asked of Noah, and all those who asked that question perished for unbelief."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZgOm6PsO4k
Most Christians hold Camping and his following to be nutty fanatics, even a cult. But this is a dissonant position, because Christians believe that the foretold events themselves are indeed going to happen, just not necessarily on May 21.
For example, Dr Wayne Grudem says, "And then what will happen on May 22 will be this, he'll (Camping) say 'whoops, I got the math wrong, let me recalculate' and then he'll set another date. It'll go on probably until he dies. Unless (begins to grin) Jesus does come back, which could happen any day."
Grudem's last statement seemed, to me, intellectually disconnected from his previous thoughts. It's as though a different person started talking, or he was suddenly speaking from a different motive. Regardless, what he does indicate is that it's not the predicted events that Christians consider nutty, it's just the predicted date.
Or is it? Can a date trigger such a gut feeling of laughter? I contend that the knee-jerk response of humor and disbelief that most Christians (and non-Christians) feel toward Camping's prediction reveals how superficially they believe in the Rapture and Judgement Day. These Doomsday events are doctrinal items which most Christians merely nod to, not real expectations which shape their behavior. It's not the date which makes Christians laugh, it's the Doomsday events themselves.
If a seismologist predicted a major earthquake on May 21, he/she wouldn't be laughed at nearly as much. This is because people genuinely expect that earthquakes will happen. Christians don't genuinely expect that Doomsday will happen; if they did, Camping's prediction would not incite the dismissive reaction it does. At least that's my prediction, laugh all you want!
Quote from Camping:
"How can anyone dare to dispute with the Bible concerning the absolute truth that the beginning of the Day of Judgment together with the Rapture will occur on May 21, 2011?"
http://www.familyradio.com/PDFS/ip_en.pdf
Quote from a Camping follower:
"I'm positive that the same question (what if you wake up on May 22?) was asked of Noah, and all those who asked that question perished for unbelief."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZgOm6PsO4k
Most Christians hold Camping and his following to be nutty fanatics, even a cult. But this is a dissonant position, because Christians believe that the foretold events themselves are indeed going to happen, just not necessarily on May 21.
For example, Dr Wayne Grudem says, "And then what will happen on May 22 will be this, he'll (Camping) say 'whoops, I got the math wrong, let me recalculate' and then he'll set another date. It'll go on probably until he dies. Unless (begins to grin) Jesus does come back, which could happen any day."
Grudem's last statement seemed, to me, intellectually disconnected from his previous thoughts. It's as though a different person started talking, or he was suddenly speaking from a different motive. Regardless, what he does indicate is that it's not the predicted events that Christians consider nutty, it's just the predicted date.
Or is it? Can a date trigger such a gut feeling of laughter? I contend that the knee-jerk response of humor and disbelief that most Christians (and non-Christians) feel toward Camping's prediction reveals how superficially they believe in the Rapture and Judgement Day. These Doomsday events are doctrinal items which most Christians merely nod to, not real expectations which shape their behavior. It's not the date which makes Christians laugh, it's the Doomsday events themselves.
If a seismologist predicted a major earthquake on May 21, he/she wouldn't be laughed at nearly as much. This is because people genuinely expect that earthquakes will happen. Christians don't genuinely expect that Doomsday will happen; if they did, Camping's prediction would not incite the dismissive reaction it does. At least that's my prediction, laugh all you want!
Monday, May 16, 2011
Book Quotes - Mistakes Were Made by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson
Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)
By Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson
Pg 17 – Severe initiations increase a members liking for the group.
Pg 18 – If the new information is consonant with our beliefs, we think it is well founded and useful: “Just what I always said!” But if the new information is dissonant, then we consider it biased or foolish: “What a dumb argument!” So powerful is the need for consonance that when people are forced to look at disconfirming evidence, they will find a way to criticize, distort, or dismiss it so that they can maintain or even strengthen their existing belief. This mental contortion is called the “confirmation bias.”
Pg 19 - … MRI while trying to process dissonant or consonant information… found that reasoning areas of the brain virtually shut down when participants were confronted with dissonant information, and the emotion circuits of the brain lit up happily when consonance was restored… once our minds are made up, it is hard to change them.
Pg 26 – … when people vent their feelings aggressively they often feel worse, pump up their blood pressure, and make themselves even angrier.
Pg 26 – when you do anything to harm someone else… a powerful new factor comes into play: the need to justify what you did… once the boy starts down the path of blaming the victim, he becomes likely to beat up on the victim with even greater ferocity the next chance he gets.
Pg 27 – Fortunately dissonance theory also shows us how a person’s generous actions can create a spiral of benevolence and compassion, a “virtuous cycle”.
Pg 29 – Because most people have a reasonably positive self-concept, believing themselves to be competent, moral, smart, their efforts at reducing dissonance will be designed to preserve their positive self-images… To reduce that dissonance, her (Mrs Keech, doomsday cult leader) followers could either have modified their opinion of their intelligence or justified the “incredibly stupid” thing they did. It’s not a close contest; it’s justification by three lengths. Mrs Keech’s true believers saved their self-esteem by deciding they hadn’t done anything stupid; in fact, they had been really smart to join this group because their faith saved the world from destruction. In fact, if everyone were smart, they would join too. Where’s that busy street corner?
Pg 33 – (The Pyramid of Choice) When the person at the top of the pyramid is uncertain, when there are benefits and costs at both choices, then he or she will feel a particular urgency to justify the choice made. But by the time the person is at the bottom of the pyramid, ambivalence will have morphed into certainty, and he or she will be miles away from anyone who took a different route.
pg 48 – The great danger to the public comes from the self-justifications of well-intentioned scientists and physicians who, because of their need to reduce dissonance, truly believe themselves to be above the influence of their corporate funders. Yet, like a plant turning toward the sun, they turn toward the interests of their sponsors without even being aware they are doing so.
Pg 53 – Once you take the gift, no matter how small, the process starts. You will feel the urge to give something back, even if it’s only, at first, your attention, your willingness to listen, your sympathy for the giver. Eventually you will be more willing to give your prescription, your ruling, your vote.
Pg 58 – Us is the most fundamental social category in the brain’s organizing system, and it’s hardwired.
Pg 59 – Without feeling attached to groups that give our lives meaning, identity, and purpose, we would suffer the intolerable sensation that we were loose marbles floating in a random universe. Therefore, we will do what it takes to preserve these attachments. Evolutionary psychologists argue that ethnocentrism – the belief that our own culture, nation, or religion is superior to all others – aids survival by strengthening our bonds to our primary social groups and thus increasing our willingness to work, fight, and occasionally die for them.
Pg 61 – Mr. X doesn’t even try to respond to Mr. Y’s evidence; he just slides along to another reason for his dislike of the Jews. Once people have a prejudice, just as once they have a political ideology, they do not easily drop it, even if the evidence indisputably contradicts a core justification for it. Rather, they come up with another justification to preserve their belief or course of action.
Pg 61 – “Trying to educate a bigot is like shining light into the pupil of an eye – it constricts.” Most people will put a lot of effort into preserving their prejudice rather than having to change it, often by way of waiving away disconfirming evidence as “exceptions that prove the rule.” (What would disprove the rule, we wonder?)
Pg 68 – “In normal circumstances,” wrote Hitler’s henchman Albert Speer in his memoirs, “people who turn their backs on reality are soon set straight by the mockery and criticism of those around them, which makes them aware they have lost credibility. In the Third Reich there were no such correctives, especially for those who belonged to the upper stratum. On the contrary, every self-deception was multiplied as in a hall of distorting mirrors, becoming a repeatedly confirmed picture of a fantastical dream world which no longer bore any relationship to the grim outside world. In those mirrors I could see nothing but my own face reproduced many times over.” Given that everyone has some blind spots, our greatest hope of self-correction lies in making sure we are not operating in a hall of mirrors, in which all we see are distorted reflections of our own desires and convictions. We need a few trusted naysayers in our lives, critics who are willing to puncture our protective bubble of self-justification and yank us back to reality if we veer too far off.
Pg 69 – All of us, as we tell our stories, add details and omit inconvenient facts; we give the tale a small, self-enhancing spin; that spin goes over so well that the next time we add a slightly more dramatic embellishment; we justify that little white lie as making the story better and clearer – until what we remember may not have happened that way, or even may not have happened at all. In this way, memory becomes our personal, live-in, self-justifying historian.
Pg 70 – But dissonance theory predicts that we will conveniently forget good arguments made by an opponent just as we forget foolish arguments made by our own side.
Pg 76 – By far, the most important distortions and confabulations of memory are those that serve to justify and explain our own lives.
Pg 86 – “imagination inflation,” because the more you imagine something, the more likely you are to inflate it into an actual memory, adding details as you go.
Pg 88 – (Sleep paralysis) During the deepest stage of sleep when dreaming is most likely to occur, a part of the brain shuts down body movements, so you won’t go hurling yourself around the bed as you dream of chasing tigers. If you awaken from this stage before your body does, you will actually be momentarily paralyzed; if your brain is still generating dream images, you will, for a few seconds, have a waking dream. That’s why those figures on the bed are dreamlike, nightmarish – you are dreaming, but with your eyes open.
Pg 90 – once the seed of belief was planted, once alien abduction was even suspected, the abductees began to search for confirmatory evidence. And once the search had begun, the evidence almost always turned up.
Pg 93 – when they are brought into the laboratory and asked to describe their traumatic abductions by aliens, their heightened physiological reactions (such as heart rate and blood pressure) are as great as those of patients who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. They have come to believe their own stories.
Pg 103 – In the profession of psychotherapy, clinical psychologists are the closest equivalents of trained lawyers… In contrast, most psychiatrists, who have medical degrees, learn about medicine and medication, but they rarely learn much about the scientific method or even about basic research in psychology.
Pg 105 – What these therapists see confirms what they believe, and what they believe shapes what they see. It’s a closed loop.
Pg 108 – “The weakness of the relationship between accuracy and confidence is one of the best documented phenomena in the 100-year history of eyewitness memory research.”
Pg 108 – The scientific method consists of the use of procedures designed to show not that our predictions and hypothesis are right, but that they might be wrong. Scientific reasoning is useful to anyone in any job because it makes us face the possibility, even the dire reality, that we were mistaken. It forces us to confront our self-justifications and put them on public display for others to puncture. At its core, therefore, science is a form of arrogance control.
Pg 109 – If every outcome confirms your hypothesis that all men unconsciously suffer from castration anxiety; or that intelligent design, rather than evolution, accounts for the diversity of species; or that your favorite psychic would have accurately predicted 9/11 if only she hadn’t been taking a shower that morning; or that dolphins are kind to humans, your beliefs are a matter of faith, not science.
Pg 110 – What unites these clinical practitioners is their misplaced reliance on their own powers of observation and the closed loop it creates. Everything they see confirms what they believe.
Pg 111 – “The notion that the mind protects itself by repressing or dissociating memories of trauma, rendering them inaccessible to awareness, is a piece of psychiatric folklore devoid of convincing empirical support.” Overwhelmingly, the evidence shows just the opposite.
Pg 113 – But if everything you observe in your clinical experience is evidence to support your beliefs, what would you consider counterevidence?
Pg 116 – Other studies of the unreliability of clinical predictions, and there are hundreds of them, are dissonance-creating news to the mental-health professionals whose self-confidence rests on the belief that their expert assessments are extremely accurate. When we said that science is a form of arrogance control, that’s what we mean.
Pg 119 – The scientists have shown that very young children, under age five, often cannot tell the difference between something they were told and something that actually happened to them.
Pg 123 – To do so would have been to realize that they had harmed the very women and children they were trying to help. It was much easier to preserve their commitments by rejecting the scientific research as being irrelevant to clinical practice. And as soon as they took that self-justifying step, they could not go back without enormous psychological difficulty. Today, standing at the bottom of the self-justifying pyramid, miles away professionally from their scientific colleagues, having devoted two decades to promoting a form of therapy that Richard McNally calls “the worst catastrophe to befall the mental-health field since the lobotomy era,” most recovered-memory clinicians remain as committed as ever to their beliefs. How have they reduced their dissonance? …minimizing the extent of the damage caused… blaming the victim… killing the messenger… dismiss all the scientific research as being part of a backlash…
Pg 125 – There are almost no psychotherapists who practiced recovered-memory therapy who have admitted that they were wrong. Of course, they may fear lawsuits. But from the few who have publicly admitted their errors, we can see what it took to shake them out of their protective cocoons of self-justification. For Linda Ross, it was taking herself out of the closed loop of private therapy sessions and forcing herself to confront, in person, parents whose lives had been destroyed by their daughter’s accusations… “Now I heard how absolutely ludicrous it sounded…”
Pg 131 – You want to think of yourself as an honorable, competent person who would never convict the wrong guy. But how can you possibly think you got the right guy in the face of the new evidence to the contrary? Because, you convince yourself, the evidence is lousy, and look, he’s a bad guy; even if he didn’t commit this particular crime, he undoubtedly committed another one. The alternative, that you sent an innocent man to prison for fifteen years, is so antithetical to your view of your competence that you will go through mental hoops to convince yourself that you couldn’t possibly have made such a blunder.
Pg 135 – It does seem ludicrous that the detectives did not change their minds, or at least entertain a moment of doubt, when Stephanie’s blood turned up on Tuite’s sweater. But once the detectives had convinced themselves that Michael and his friends were guilty, they started down the decision pyramid, self-justifying every bump to the bottom.
Pg 136 – In one experiment, jurors listened to an audiotaped reenactment of an actual murder trial and then said how they would have voted and why. Instead of considering and weighing possible verdicts in light of the evidence, most people immediately constructed a story about what had happened and then, as evidence was presented during the mock trial, they accepted only the evidence that supported their preconceived version of what had happened.
Pg 137 – In the case of Patrick Dunn of Bakersfield, California... the police chose to believe the uncorroborated account of a career criminal, which supported their theory that Dunn was guilty, rather than corroborated statements by an impartial witness, which would have exonerated him. This decision was unbelievable to the defendant, who asked his lawyer, Stan Simrin, “But don’t they want the truth?” “Yes,” Simrin said, “and they are convinced they have found it. They believe the truth is you are guilty. And now they will do whatever it takes to convict you.”
Pg 145 - … training does not increase accuracy; it increases people’s confidence in their accuracy.
Pg 149 - … many prosecutors end up being prepared to sabotage their own side’s goal of justice to preserve their convictions, in both meanings of the world.
Pg 149 – In the cases of crimes that have roused public emotions, they are under enormous pressure to get a conviction quickly. Any doubts they might have are drowned in the satisfaction of feeling that they are representing the forces of good against a vile criminal.
Pg 150 – Across the country, as DNA testing has freed hundreds of prisoners, news accounts often include a quote or two from the prosecutors who originally tried them. For example, in Philadelphia, District Attorney Bruce L Castor Jr. was asked by reporters what scientific basis he had for rejecting a DNA test that exonerated a man who had been in prison for 20 years. He replied, “I have no scientific basis. I know because I trust my detective and my tape-recorded confession.” How do we know that this casual dismissal of DNA testing, which is persuasive to just about everyone else on the planet, is a sign of self-justification and not simply an honest assessment of the evidence? It’s like the horse-race study we described in chapter 1: Once we have placed our bets, we don’t want to entertain any information that casts doubts on that decision. That is why prosecutors will interpret the same evidence in two ways, depending on when it is discovered. Early in an investigation, the police use DNA to confirm a suspect’s guilt of rule the person out. But when DNA tests are conducted after a defendant has been indicted and convicted, the prosecutors typically dismiss it as being irrelevant, not important enough to reopen the case… But DNA evidence should be used the same way whenever it turns up; it is the need for self-justification that prevents most prosecutors from being able to do that. Defense attorney Peter J Neufield says that in his experience, reinterpreting the evidence to justify the original verdict is extremely common among prosecutors and judges.
Pg 152 – Doubt is not the enemy of justice; overconfidence is.
Pg 201 – It is much more reassuring to believe they are evil and be done with them. We dare not let a glimmer of their humanity in the door, because it might force us to face the haunting truth of Pogo’s great line, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
Pg 223 – Perhaps the greatest lesson of dissonance theory is that we can’t wait around for people to have moral conversions, personality transplants, sudden changes of heart, or new insights that will cause them to sit up straight, admit error, and do the right thing.
Pg 227 – “It is part of the scientific attitude to change one’s beliefs once they are discredited. Well, it’s not an easy thing to do. Combine invested time, invested money, high hopes, high expectations, and a relative amount of pride, and you’re up for quite a challenge when confronted with contradicting evidence.”
Pg 228 – Understanding how the mind yearns for confidence and rejects information that questions our beliefs, decisions, or preferences, teaches us to be open to the possibility of error. It also helps us let go of the need to be right.
Pg 229 – “Nowadays, when I feel passionate that I am 100% right about a decision that others question, I look at it again; that’s all.” Berry did not have to admit that she made a mistake; she didn’t make a mistake. But she did have to let go of her need to be right.
Pg 213 – Understanding how dissonance operates helps us rethink our own muddles, but it is also a useful skill for helping friends and relatives get out of theirs. Too often, out of the best of intentions, we do the very thing guaranteed to make matters worse: We hector, lecture, bully, plead, or threaten. Anthony Pratkanis, a social psychologist who investigated how scammers prey on their elderly targets, collected heartbreaking stories of family members pleading with relatives who had been defrauded: “Can’t you see the guy is a thief and the offer is a scam? You’re being ripped off!” “Ironically this natural tendency to lecture may be one of the worst things a family member or friend can do,” Pratkanis says. “A lecture just makes the victim feel more defensive and pushes him or her further into the clutches of the fraud criminal.” Anyone who understands dissonance knows why. Shouting “What were you thinking?” will backfire because it means “Boy, are you stupid.” Such accusations cause already embarrassed victims to withdraw further into themselves and clam up, refusing to tell anyone what they are doing. And what they are doing is investing more money, or buying more magazines, because now they really have an incentive to get the family savings back, show they are not stupid or senile, and prove that what they were thinking was perfectly sensible. Therefore, says Pratkanis, before the victim of a scam will inch back from the precipice, he or she needs to feel respected and supported. Helpful relatives can encourage the person to talk about his or her values and how those values influenced what happened, while they listen uncritically. Instead of irritably asking “How could you possibly have believed that creep?” you say “Tell me what appealed to you about the guy that made you believe him.” Con artists take advantage of people’s best qualities – their kindness, politeness, and their desire to honor their commitments, reciprocate a gift, or help a friend. Praising the victim for having these worthy values, says Pratkanis, even if they got the person into hot water in this particular situation, will offset feelings of insecurity and incompetence.
By Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson
Pg 17 – Severe initiations increase a members liking for the group.
Pg 18 – If the new information is consonant with our beliefs, we think it is well founded and useful: “Just what I always said!” But if the new information is dissonant, then we consider it biased or foolish: “What a dumb argument!” So powerful is the need for consonance that when people are forced to look at disconfirming evidence, they will find a way to criticize, distort, or dismiss it so that they can maintain or even strengthen their existing belief. This mental contortion is called the “confirmation bias.”
Pg 19 - … MRI while trying to process dissonant or consonant information… found that reasoning areas of the brain virtually shut down when participants were confronted with dissonant information, and the emotion circuits of the brain lit up happily when consonance was restored… once our minds are made up, it is hard to change them.
Pg 26 – … when people vent their feelings aggressively they often feel worse, pump up their blood pressure, and make themselves even angrier.
Pg 26 – when you do anything to harm someone else… a powerful new factor comes into play: the need to justify what you did… once the boy starts down the path of blaming the victim, he becomes likely to beat up on the victim with even greater ferocity the next chance he gets.
Pg 27 – Fortunately dissonance theory also shows us how a person’s generous actions can create a spiral of benevolence and compassion, a “virtuous cycle”.
Pg 29 – Because most people have a reasonably positive self-concept, believing themselves to be competent, moral, smart, their efforts at reducing dissonance will be designed to preserve their positive self-images… To reduce that dissonance, her (Mrs Keech, doomsday cult leader) followers could either have modified their opinion of their intelligence or justified the “incredibly stupid” thing they did. It’s not a close contest; it’s justification by three lengths. Mrs Keech’s true believers saved their self-esteem by deciding they hadn’t done anything stupid; in fact, they had been really smart to join this group because their faith saved the world from destruction. In fact, if everyone were smart, they would join too. Where’s that busy street corner?
Pg 33 – (The Pyramid of Choice) When the person at the top of the pyramid is uncertain, when there are benefits and costs at both choices, then he or she will feel a particular urgency to justify the choice made. But by the time the person is at the bottom of the pyramid, ambivalence will have morphed into certainty, and he or she will be miles away from anyone who took a different route.
pg 48 – The great danger to the public comes from the self-justifications of well-intentioned scientists and physicians who, because of their need to reduce dissonance, truly believe themselves to be above the influence of their corporate funders. Yet, like a plant turning toward the sun, they turn toward the interests of their sponsors without even being aware they are doing so.
Pg 53 – Once you take the gift, no matter how small, the process starts. You will feel the urge to give something back, even if it’s only, at first, your attention, your willingness to listen, your sympathy for the giver. Eventually you will be more willing to give your prescription, your ruling, your vote.
Pg 58 – Us is the most fundamental social category in the brain’s organizing system, and it’s hardwired.
Pg 59 – Without feeling attached to groups that give our lives meaning, identity, and purpose, we would suffer the intolerable sensation that we were loose marbles floating in a random universe. Therefore, we will do what it takes to preserve these attachments. Evolutionary psychologists argue that ethnocentrism – the belief that our own culture, nation, or religion is superior to all others – aids survival by strengthening our bonds to our primary social groups and thus increasing our willingness to work, fight, and occasionally die for them.
Pg 61 – Mr. X doesn’t even try to respond to Mr. Y’s evidence; he just slides along to another reason for his dislike of the Jews. Once people have a prejudice, just as once they have a political ideology, they do not easily drop it, even if the evidence indisputably contradicts a core justification for it. Rather, they come up with another justification to preserve their belief or course of action.
Pg 61 – “Trying to educate a bigot is like shining light into the pupil of an eye – it constricts.” Most people will put a lot of effort into preserving their prejudice rather than having to change it, often by way of waiving away disconfirming evidence as “exceptions that prove the rule.” (What would disprove the rule, we wonder?)
Pg 68 – “In normal circumstances,” wrote Hitler’s henchman Albert Speer in his memoirs, “people who turn their backs on reality are soon set straight by the mockery and criticism of those around them, which makes them aware they have lost credibility. In the Third Reich there were no such correctives, especially for those who belonged to the upper stratum. On the contrary, every self-deception was multiplied as in a hall of distorting mirrors, becoming a repeatedly confirmed picture of a fantastical dream world which no longer bore any relationship to the grim outside world. In those mirrors I could see nothing but my own face reproduced many times over.” Given that everyone has some blind spots, our greatest hope of self-correction lies in making sure we are not operating in a hall of mirrors, in which all we see are distorted reflections of our own desires and convictions. We need a few trusted naysayers in our lives, critics who are willing to puncture our protective bubble of self-justification and yank us back to reality if we veer too far off.
Pg 69 – All of us, as we tell our stories, add details and omit inconvenient facts; we give the tale a small, self-enhancing spin; that spin goes over so well that the next time we add a slightly more dramatic embellishment; we justify that little white lie as making the story better and clearer – until what we remember may not have happened that way, or even may not have happened at all. In this way, memory becomes our personal, live-in, self-justifying historian.
Pg 70 – But dissonance theory predicts that we will conveniently forget good arguments made by an opponent just as we forget foolish arguments made by our own side.
Pg 76 – By far, the most important distortions and confabulations of memory are those that serve to justify and explain our own lives.
Pg 86 – “imagination inflation,” because the more you imagine something, the more likely you are to inflate it into an actual memory, adding details as you go.
Pg 88 – (Sleep paralysis) During the deepest stage of sleep when dreaming is most likely to occur, a part of the brain shuts down body movements, so you won’t go hurling yourself around the bed as you dream of chasing tigers. If you awaken from this stage before your body does, you will actually be momentarily paralyzed; if your brain is still generating dream images, you will, for a few seconds, have a waking dream. That’s why those figures on the bed are dreamlike, nightmarish – you are dreaming, but with your eyes open.
Pg 90 – once the seed of belief was planted, once alien abduction was even suspected, the abductees began to search for confirmatory evidence. And once the search had begun, the evidence almost always turned up.
Pg 93 – when they are brought into the laboratory and asked to describe their traumatic abductions by aliens, their heightened physiological reactions (such as heart rate and blood pressure) are as great as those of patients who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. They have come to believe their own stories.
Pg 103 – In the profession of psychotherapy, clinical psychologists are the closest equivalents of trained lawyers… In contrast, most psychiatrists, who have medical degrees, learn about medicine and medication, but they rarely learn much about the scientific method or even about basic research in psychology.
Pg 105 – What these therapists see confirms what they believe, and what they believe shapes what they see. It’s a closed loop.
Pg 108 – “The weakness of the relationship between accuracy and confidence is one of the best documented phenomena in the 100-year history of eyewitness memory research.”
Pg 108 – The scientific method consists of the use of procedures designed to show not that our predictions and hypothesis are right, but that they might be wrong. Scientific reasoning is useful to anyone in any job because it makes us face the possibility, even the dire reality, that we were mistaken. It forces us to confront our self-justifications and put them on public display for others to puncture. At its core, therefore, science is a form of arrogance control.
Pg 109 – If every outcome confirms your hypothesis that all men unconsciously suffer from castration anxiety; or that intelligent design, rather than evolution, accounts for the diversity of species; or that your favorite psychic would have accurately predicted 9/11 if only she hadn’t been taking a shower that morning; or that dolphins are kind to humans, your beliefs are a matter of faith, not science.
Pg 110 – What unites these clinical practitioners is their misplaced reliance on their own powers of observation and the closed loop it creates. Everything they see confirms what they believe.
Pg 111 – “The notion that the mind protects itself by repressing or dissociating memories of trauma, rendering them inaccessible to awareness, is a piece of psychiatric folklore devoid of convincing empirical support.” Overwhelmingly, the evidence shows just the opposite.
Pg 113 – But if everything you observe in your clinical experience is evidence to support your beliefs, what would you consider counterevidence?
Pg 116 – Other studies of the unreliability of clinical predictions, and there are hundreds of them, are dissonance-creating news to the mental-health professionals whose self-confidence rests on the belief that their expert assessments are extremely accurate. When we said that science is a form of arrogance control, that’s what we mean.
Pg 119 – The scientists have shown that very young children, under age five, often cannot tell the difference between something they were told and something that actually happened to them.
Pg 123 – To do so would have been to realize that they had harmed the very women and children they were trying to help. It was much easier to preserve their commitments by rejecting the scientific research as being irrelevant to clinical practice. And as soon as they took that self-justifying step, they could not go back without enormous psychological difficulty. Today, standing at the bottom of the self-justifying pyramid, miles away professionally from their scientific colleagues, having devoted two decades to promoting a form of therapy that Richard McNally calls “the worst catastrophe to befall the mental-health field since the lobotomy era,” most recovered-memory clinicians remain as committed as ever to their beliefs. How have they reduced their dissonance? …minimizing the extent of the damage caused… blaming the victim… killing the messenger… dismiss all the scientific research as being part of a backlash…
Pg 125 – There are almost no psychotherapists who practiced recovered-memory therapy who have admitted that they were wrong. Of course, they may fear lawsuits. But from the few who have publicly admitted their errors, we can see what it took to shake them out of their protective cocoons of self-justification. For Linda Ross, it was taking herself out of the closed loop of private therapy sessions and forcing herself to confront, in person, parents whose lives had been destroyed by their daughter’s accusations… “Now I heard how absolutely ludicrous it sounded…”
Pg 131 – You want to think of yourself as an honorable, competent person who would never convict the wrong guy. But how can you possibly think you got the right guy in the face of the new evidence to the contrary? Because, you convince yourself, the evidence is lousy, and look, he’s a bad guy; even if he didn’t commit this particular crime, he undoubtedly committed another one. The alternative, that you sent an innocent man to prison for fifteen years, is so antithetical to your view of your competence that you will go through mental hoops to convince yourself that you couldn’t possibly have made such a blunder.
Pg 135 – It does seem ludicrous that the detectives did not change their minds, or at least entertain a moment of doubt, when Stephanie’s blood turned up on Tuite’s sweater. But once the detectives had convinced themselves that Michael and his friends were guilty, they started down the decision pyramid, self-justifying every bump to the bottom.
Pg 136 – In one experiment, jurors listened to an audiotaped reenactment of an actual murder trial and then said how they would have voted and why. Instead of considering and weighing possible verdicts in light of the evidence, most people immediately constructed a story about what had happened and then, as evidence was presented during the mock trial, they accepted only the evidence that supported their preconceived version of what had happened.
Pg 137 – In the case of Patrick Dunn of Bakersfield, California... the police chose to believe the uncorroborated account of a career criminal, which supported their theory that Dunn was guilty, rather than corroborated statements by an impartial witness, which would have exonerated him. This decision was unbelievable to the defendant, who asked his lawyer, Stan Simrin, “But don’t they want the truth?” “Yes,” Simrin said, “and they are convinced they have found it. They believe the truth is you are guilty. And now they will do whatever it takes to convict you.”
Pg 145 - … training does not increase accuracy; it increases people’s confidence in their accuracy.
Pg 149 - … many prosecutors end up being prepared to sabotage their own side’s goal of justice to preserve their convictions, in both meanings of the world.
Pg 149 – In the cases of crimes that have roused public emotions, they are under enormous pressure to get a conviction quickly. Any doubts they might have are drowned in the satisfaction of feeling that they are representing the forces of good against a vile criminal.
Pg 150 – Across the country, as DNA testing has freed hundreds of prisoners, news accounts often include a quote or two from the prosecutors who originally tried them. For example, in Philadelphia, District Attorney Bruce L Castor Jr. was asked by reporters what scientific basis he had for rejecting a DNA test that exonerated a man who had been in prison for 20 years. He replied, “I have no scientific basis. I know because I trust my detective and my tape-recorded confession.” How do we know that this casual dismissal of DNA testing, which is persuasive to just about everyone else on the planet, is a sign of self-justification and not simply an honest assessment of the evidence? It’s like the horse-race study we described in chapter 1: Once we have placed our bets, we don’t want to entertain any information that casts doubts on that decision. That is why prosecutors will interpret the same evidence in two ways, depending on when it is discovered. Early in an investigation, the police use DNA to confirm a suspect’s guilt of rule the person out. But when DNA tests are conducted after a defendant has been indicted and convicted, the prosecutors typically dismiss it as being irrelevant, not important enough to reopen the case… But DNA evidence should be used the same way whenever it turns up; it is the need for self-justification that prevents most prosecutors from being able to do that. Defense attorney Peter J Neufield says that in his experience, reinterpreting the evidence to justify the original verdict is extremely common among prosecutors and judges.
Pg 152 – Doubt is not the enemy of justice; overconfidence is.
Pg 201 – It is much more reassuring to believe they are evil and be done with them. We dare not let a glimmer of their humanity in the door, because it might force us to face the haunting truth of Pogo’s great line, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
Pg 223 – Perhaps the greatest lesson of dissonance theory is that we can’t wait around for people to have moral conversions, personality transplants, sudden changes of heart, or new insights that will cause them to sit up straight, admit error, and do the right thing.
Pg 227 – “It is part of the scientific attitude to change one’s beliefs once they are discredited. Well, it’s not an easy thing to do. Combine invested time, invested money, high hopes, high expectations, and a relative amount of pride, and you’re up for quite a challenge when confronted with contradicting evidence.”
Pg 228 – Understanding how the mind yearns for confidence and rejects information that questions our beliefs, decisions, or preferences, teaches us to be open to the possibility of error. It also helps us let go of the need to be right.
Pg 229 – “Nowadays, when I feel passionate that I am 100% right about a decision that others question, I look at it again; that’s all.” Berry did not have to admit that she made a mistake; she didn’t make a mistake. But she did have to let go of her need to be right.
Pg 213 – Understanding how dissonance operates helps us rethink our own muddles, but it is also a useful skill for helping friends and relatives get out of theirs. Too often, out of the best of intentions, we do the very thing guaranteed to make matters worse: We hector, lecture, bully, plead, or threaten. Anthony Pratkanis, a social psychologist who investigated how scammers prey on their elderly targets, collected heartbreaking stories of family members pleading with relatives who had been defrauded: “Can’t you see the guy is a thief and the offer is a scam? You’re being ripped off!” “Ironically this natural tendency to lecture may be one of the worst things a family member or friend can do,” Pratkanis says. “A lecture just makes the victim feel more defensive and pushes him or her further into the clutches of the fraud criminal.” Anyone who understands dissonance knows why. Shouting “What were you thinking?” will backfire because it means “Boy, are you stupid.” Such accusations cause already embarrassed victims to withdraw further into themselves and clam up, refusing to tell anyone what they are doing. And what they are doing is investing more money, or buying more magazines, because now they really have an incentive to get the family savings back, show they are not stupid or senile, and prove that what they were thinking was perfectly sensible. Therefore, says Pratkanis, before the victim of a scam will inch back from the precipice, he or she needs to feel respected and supported. Helpful relatives can encourage the person to talk about his or her values and how those values influenced what happened, while they listen uncritically. Instead of irritably asking “How could you possibly have believed that creep?” you say “Tell me what appealed to you about the guy that made you believe him.” Con artists take advantage of people’s best qualities – their kindness, politeness, and their desire to honor their commitments, reciprocate a gift, or help a friend. Praising the victim for having these worthy values, says Pratkanis, even if they got the person into hot water in this particular situation, will offset feelings of insecurity and incompetence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)