Philosophy

Books on the Political Divide

June 1, 2013

Political debate is often unpleasant because most people are blind to the reasons and assumptions of the other side. I believe that understanding the deep assumptions behind political beliefs will minimize political conflict and increase respect for each other. It might even help us make political progress. Here are 4 book recommendations that enlighten the deep assumptions that fuel the political divide.

A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles

This is by far my favorite book about understanding the deep assumptions behind political beliefs and it is one of my favorite books in general. The author Thomas Sowell, starts by pointing out the consistency by which people hold political beliefs. According to Sowell:

A closer look at the arguments on both sides often shows that they are reasoning from fundamentally different premises. These different premises —often implicit—are what provide the consistency behind the repeated opposition of individuals and groups on numerous unrelated issues. They have different visions of how the world works.

Whether one tends toward politically right or politically left views depends on one’s vision about human nature. According to the early twentieth century intellectual Walter Lippmann, “At the core of every moral code there is a picture of human nature, a map of the universe, and a version of history.” Beliefs that are often associated with the political right assume that human nature is inherently limited in knowledge, wisdom and virtue and social arrangements must acknowledge those limits. Sowell calls this the Constrained Vision. Political beliefs associated with the political left assume that psychological limitations are artifacts that come from our social arrangements, and we should not allow them to restrict our gaze from what is possible in a better world. Sowell calls this is the Unconstrained Vision.

These visions cover a wide range of political beliefs on both sides including different views about knowledge and reason, tradition and markets, age and experience, sincerity and fidelity, justice and equality, and power and freedom. In my experience, this way of looking at political beliefs has been so accurate that when I have identified the vision of a particular individual, I can quite confidently predict what they believe about such disparate issues as gun control, markets, abortion, religion, gender issues, education, war, healthcare, and more.

The book treats both sides quite fairly and evenly. It covers intellectual history and gives many examples of specific thinkers that have contributed to each vision. Every reader will gain a greater understanding of the reasons behind their own political beliefs as well as the beliefs of those with whom they disagree.

Here is a good introduction to this book by the author:

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature

This book by the cognitive scientist Steven Pinker details the history of the blank slate which the belief that people are born without any innate dispositions, abilities, or preferences. This belief implies that all behavior is learned from one’s environment and that everyone has equal opportunities to succeed if they are raised in the right environment. The blank slate premise leads to conclusions about politics, violence, gender, parenting, the arts, and much more.

Pinker shows how the study of evolutionary psychology thoroughly debunks the blank slate and the linked dogmas of the “noble savage” and “the ghost in the machine. The noble savage is the view that man is born good and is corrupted by society. The ghost in the machine is the view that everyone has a soul that can make choices free from biology. He not only shows how these theories are false, he also shows how the blank slate has been used to justify disastrous political experiments such as totalitarian social engineering.

At one point in the book, Pinker refers to The Conflict of Visions. He wrote, “The most sweeping attempt to survey the underlying dimension is Thomas Sowell’s A Conflict of Visions. Not every ideological struggle fits his scheme, but as we say in social science, he has identified a factor that can account for a large proportion of the variance.” Pinker refers to the constrained vision as the Tragic Vision of human nature and he calls the unconstrained vision a Utopian Vision of human nature. Pinker then suggests that the constrained vision is a more correct view of human nature than the unconstrained vision. ”The new sciences of human nature”, Pinker says, ‘vindicate some version of the Tragic Vision and undermine the Utopian outlook’.

This book is quite profound and a pleasure to read. Pinker weaves in many popular references with dense scientific critiques of the blank slate. It was a pulitzer prize finalist and essential reading for anyone interested in understanding the political divide.

Here is Pinker’s TED talk about the book:

The Three Languages of Politics

This brand new book is very short and very cheap—only $1.99 on the Kindle store. Arnold Kling shows how different ideologies speak different languages. Progressives, Conservatives, and Libertarians each have an axis of concern:

• The Progressives narrative follow an “oppressed vs. oppressor” axis.
• The Conservative narrative follow a “civilization vs. barbarism” axis.
• The Libertarian narrative follow a “freedom vs. coercion” axis.

This three-axes model helps us see how and why people demonize those who don’t agree with them. For progressives, conservatives and libertarians want to oppress the poor. For conservatives, progressives and sometimes libertarians unwittingly encourage barbarism and undermining civilization. For libertarians, progressives and some conservatives support policies that undermine freedom.

We can be more charitable to others by speaking their language and showing why a particular axis narrative does or does not apply to a given political situation. Kling makes a distinction between motivated thinking which is based on unexamined intuition and emotion and constructive thinking which is based on logic. Understanding the three-axes model and being more charitable to others will stimulate our constructive thinking. We should try to understand why we think our political opponents are wrong instead of automatically assuming those on the other side are irrational. Our own rationality is called into question when we automatically assume that other people are irrational.

Here is a podcast where Arnold Kling discusses these views.

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion

I just finished this book the other day. Jonathan Haidt uses what he calls “Moral Psychology” to show that human beings evolved certain moral intuitions that influence their political and religious beliefs.

One of Haidt’s metaphor that I like is the “Elephant and Rider” metaphor. The rider represents the conscious controlled processes and the elephant represents all of the automatic processes. These two systems evolved for to perform different functions. Our elephant is our primary decision maker and our rider is our press agent. Most of the time, the rider justifies why we did what we did. Only rarely does the rider actually influence the elephant.

Haidt argues that reason is vastly overrated and that intuitions are much better at guiding our political beliefs. I personally think that he pushes this point too far because of course, he has to use reason in his arguments that try to undermine reason. Nevertheless, he makes good points about understanding the relationship between our intuitions and reasons.

Haidt also develops “Moral Foundations Theory” where he talks about 6 moral foundations that inform our intuitions. These foundations include the following:

Care /Harm
Fairness/Cheating
Liberty/Oppression
Loyalty/Betrayal
Authority/Subversion
Sanctity/Degredation

Haidt uses details surveys that measure how sensitive each person is to one of the moral foundations. He found that liberals and those that are left-wing value the care and fairness foundations and tend to minimize or ignore the other 4 foundations. Conservatives on the other hand value all of the evolved foundations equally. Although Haidt is a liberal, he argues that conservatives have a more balanced intuitional foundation. Understanding these moral foundations can help us to understand the intuitions of those with whom we disagree.

Try out his moral foundations quiz and see the fascinating results

The authors
These 4 authors have greatly influenced my thinking about how to understand political beliefs. These 4 books would make a great foundation for a course in understanding politics. The authors span the political spectrum. Thomas Sowell tends to be more conservative. Steven Pinker is moderate but seems to lean to the right. Arnold Kling is a libertarian. And, Jonathan Haidt is a liberal.

Discussion 5 Comments Category Human Nature, Politics Tags Books, Politcal theory, Political divide

Philosophical Analysis of the LDS Sacrament

May 26, 2013

In this post I want to show how Searle’s philosophy of social ontology helps clarify the ritual of the LDS Sacrament. This post will be easier to understand if you read my post on Social Ontology:

Many religions believe in and perform a sacrament ritual which is often referred to as Communion. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints participates in a Sacrament meeting every week during their worship services. During the sacrament, bread and water are blessed and passed out to the congregation who eat and drink the bread and water.

Typically two young men who hold the priesthood (at the level of priests) bless the bread and water in front of the congregation. Before they bless the bread and water they break the bread into small pieces and pour water into small plastic or paper cups. At the appropriate time, one of them blesses the bread by saying the following prayer:

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen. (D&C 20:77)

After they bless the bread, several other young men who hold the priesthood (at the level of deacons) pass the bread to each member of the congregation. When everyone in the congregation has eaten a piece of bread, one of the two young men then bless the water by saying the following prayer:

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this [water] to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen. (D&C 20:79)

Then the water is then passed to the congregation and the sacrament ends.

What does it mean to “bless”?
To bless means to make something holy. In my last post, I wrote that “holiness” is not a physical characteristic of an object. Rather, “holiness” is a status that is assigned to an object. Therefore, when we bless the bread and water we are assigning a status to them. We are more specifically asking God to recognize a specific status, but we are not asking God to change the molecular structure or physical substance of the bread and water. Catholics on the other hand believe that the physical substance does change. (see transubstantiation)

What is the purpose of the status that is assigned to the bread and water?
The purpose of assigning a status to anything is to give that thing a function. The intended function of the bread and water is to cause the partaker to remember the Son and His atonement. The bread that we eat for breakfast does not have that function. Even if we did think of Christ every time we ate our morning toast, it would still not count as performing the function of the sacrament, because the assignment of that sacrament function must be recognized by both the partaker and by God. The bread and water are often called “emblems” because they are supposed to act as representations of Christ and His atoning sacrifice.

Why must the sacrament be recognized by both the partaker and by God?
The Sacrament ritual is a covenant that we make with God. More precisely, the sacrament is a renewal of covenants that were already made when the partaker of the sacrament was baptized. Not only do we make a promise to God, but God makes a promise with us. Therefore, the sacrament must be recognized by both parties.

What counts as covenanting with God? The act of partaking of emblems, or the act of remembering?
In order to answer this question I need to make a distinction between two types of complex actions. The first type of complex action involves doing something “by way of” doing something else. The second type of complex action involves doing something “by means of” doing something else. These types of complex actions are summarized by John Searle:

So, for example, if the chairman says, “All those in favor of the motion raise your right hand,” and I raise my right hand, I am not only raising my right hand but also voting for the motion. These are not two separate actions—raising my right hand and voting; rather, they are one action with two levels of description of the two different features of the action. Raising my right hand in that circumstance constitutes voting. I vote by way of raising my hand.

Another type of a complex action is where one intentionally does something that causes something else to occur. For example, I fire a gun by means of pulling the trigger. Here again there are not two actions—pulling the trigger and firing the gun—but only one action with two different levels of description. At the bottom level I intentionally pull the trigger. My pulling the trigger causes the gun to fire. My pulling the trigger does not cause me to fire the gun; in that context it just is firing the gun. But firing the gun is a complex act, where I intentionally achieve the effect that the gun fires by the causal “by means of” relation, whereby my bottom-level intentional movement causes the higher level effect, and the combination is the total action. (Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization p36)

The act of partaking of the sacrament emblems has a “by means of” relationship with the act of remembering of Christ and His atonement. The partaking is intended to be the cause, and the remembering is the effect. Eating the bread and drinking water is also an outward sign of an inward activity.

The act of remembering has a “by way of” relationship with the act of covenanting. The remembering does not cause us to covenant with God. The remembering constitutes covenanting with God. Therefore, the intentional act of remembering is a speech act that counts as promising just as raising one’s right arm counts as voting for a motion.

What do we promise to God?
The partaker of the sacrament promises to (1) always remember Christ, and (2) be willing to take upon the name of Christ, and (3) keep His commandments.

What does it mean to be willing to take upon us the name of Christ?
According to the apostle Dallin H. Oaks, the phrase “willing to take upon them the name of thy Son” has multiple meanings. In this post I will only focus on one of those meanings. To be willing to take upon the name of Christ is to be willing to accept a certain status that comes with the name. With that status comes a specific function, and with that function comes certain deontic powers such as rights and authorizations, and obligations and requirements. This pattern was illustrated to me a few days ago when my wife took the Oath of Allegiance and became a citizen of the United States of America. She essentially took upon her the name of America and became an American. She swore that she would be willing to freely take upon her certain obligations such as serving and fighting for America. Because she made this oath, she is entitled to all the rights and entitlements that come with being an American citizen.

The difference between the sacrament and the oath of Allegiance is that in the sacrament, we do not take upon ourselves the name of Christ; we only express that we are willing to do so. This implies that at some future date we will be eligible to actually take upon ourselves the name of Christ. According to Dallin H. Oaks,

Scriptural references to the name of Jesus Christ often signify the authority of Jesus Christ. In that sense, our willingness to take upon us his name signifies our willingness to take upon us the authority of Jesus Christ in the sacred ordinances of the temple, and to receive the highest blessings available through his authority when he chooses to confer them upon us. (see D&C 109:26)

This understanding thus connects the ordinance of the sacrament with the ordinances in the temple. This suggests that only those who have been to the temple can understand the deeper meaning behind sacrament because they can understand the rights and authorizations as well as obligations taken when they take upon His name in the House of the Lord.

What does God promise to us in the sacrament?
God promises to give us “His Spirit”.

What is His Spirit?
It is commonly understood that His Spirit refers to the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Why do we make promises in this ritualistic way?
A promise is a commissive speech act. As such the speaker of the promise commits herself to perform some course of action. In the case of the sacrament, the eating of the bread is a speech act. It is an act of language without the use of phonetic utterances.

The sacrament emblems could be anything because human beings can assign status functions to anything. Instead of blessing and eating bread we could bless gummy bears. Or we could have performed some bodily movement such as a dance. Or we could have simply filled out a check box on a form. But I believe that the activity of eating has symbolic significance that can more deeply and vividly help us understand the meaning behind the sacrament.

Why do we need to make promises at all?
All institutional facts are extensions of language or “speech acts” that are designed to effect behavior. Institutional facts affect behavior by locking into human rationality by providing “desire-independent reasons for action.” The natural desires of mankind are contrary to the will of God. These desires tend to be immoral and promote chaos. Institutional facts can promote order and morality by giving us reasons to act that are different from our natural desires. For example, when we make a promise to do something, we have engaged in a commissive speech act that gives us a reason to do that which we promised even when we do not want to follow through with our promise.

In the LDS sacrament, members covenant to continue to always remember Christ and to obey God’s commandments. This gives us a reason to act independently of our natural desires. Thus, making promises gives us added motivation to follow the commandments by giving us desire-independent reasons for acting.

Discussion Leave a comment Category Religion, Social Ontology Tags LDS audience, LDS theology, Sacrament

What does holiness mean?

May 7, 2013

The purpose of this post is to answer the question:
What is the meaning of holiness?

Recently, I have been studying John Searle’s philosophy of institutional facts. I find that his philosophy answers many interesting questions in a clear and precise way and relates to many different fields of study including religion and theology.

Searle’s philosophy shows how new facts can be created by collectively recognizing the assignment of functions to objects that cannot perform those functions by themselves alone. A useful mnemonic device for logically analyzing these social facts is the formula: X counts as Y in context C as in the example “This piece of paper (X) counts as money (Y) in the United States (C). I introduce these concepts in more detail here. I find this philosophy very useful in understanding the concept of “Holiness”.

The word holy is synonymous with the word sacred. Holy is an english word that has Germanic roots. Sacred is an english word that has Latin roots. In the scriptures there are several different things that are described as “holy” such as the following:

• Spoken Words and Texts such as scriptures
• Rituals and Ordinances such as the activities performed in the temple.
• Objects such as the Menorah or the Arc of the Covenant
• Art and Architecture such as temples
• Time such as the sabbath day
• People such as priests
• Institutions or communities such as Zion or the Church

Generally speaking, Holy means that which belongs to God or associated with God. Using the language of Searle’s philosophy of institutional facts, something is holy if God recognizes it to have a certain status and by virtue of that status, the object can perform a specific function. Here are a few applications of this concept:

Prophets
A person counts as a prophet when they are recognized by God as being a prophet. The person alone is not sufficient to constitute being a prophet. You need the person plus God’s recognition. Someone claiming to be a prophet that is not recognized by God is a false prophet. The status of “prophet” gives certain authorizations and obligations to the rightful bearer of that title. Such authorizations include the right to act in God’s name and receive revelation on behalf of other people. Since they are recognized by God, prophets are holy. The Holy Prophets are still prophets even if no one but God recognizes their status.

Emblems of the Sacrament
The Sacrament is blessed (is made holy) if God recognizes it as being blessed. The bread and water count as a symbols of Christ and the act of eating those symbols and remembering Christ count as performing a covenant with God. The bread and water alone are not sufficient to be symbols of Christ by themselves. You need the bread and water plus God’s recognition and the recognition of those engaging in the sacrament ritual. The covenants renewed during the sacrament are holy because they are recognized by God.

Priesthood
The priesthood is the authority to act in God’s name and use His power. A person counts as having the status of priesthood holder when they are authorized to perform specific functions such as blessing the Sacrament or healing the sick. A person only has the priesthood when they are recognized by God as having that priesthood. God recognizes a person’s priesthood when they are righteous and have been given the priesthood by someone else who has the priesthood who has been authorized by a church official such as the Bishop.

Temple
The temple is holy because it is God’s house. Temples are centers for creating, preserving, and transmitting other Holy symbols. By itself, the physical building that constitutes a temple is not Holy. You need the building plus God’s recognition that it is a temple for it to be holy.

I could describe many more religious concepts using these terms. There is a general formula that comes out of these examples:

X counts as something holy if it has a status that is recognized by God in order to perform a specific function that it cannot perform without God’s recognition of that status. That status always comes with deontic powers such as rights, authorizations, and permissions, or obligations, duties, and requirements.

Nothing is holy in this context unless God recognizes it as being holy and sacred. And, nothing is holy unless it is assigned a certain status in order to perform a specific function. These concepts should be thought about with an attitude of reverence and we should treat these concepts as God treats them. That which is unholy is that which has a status such that we are obligated to avoid it. God does not dwell in unholy temples. We should likewise not enter unholy places or situations.

Holy objects are different from other social objects (like money) in that an object can be holy even if God is the only person that recognizes them as being holy. Whereas all other social objects exist only if there is a large amount of people that recognize them as existing.

Sources:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/ancient-temples-and-sacred-symbolism-video/

The Construction of Social Reality by John Searle

Discussion Leave a comment Category Language, Religion, Social Ontology Tags Holiness, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Human Rights

April 28, 2013

This is part two in a series of posts on human rights.

Human rights are at the center of many sensitive political debates. Same-sex marriage advocates claim that homosexuals have a human right to be married, many believe that an unborn fetus has a natural right to life, and some believe that people have a human right to be provided with healthcare just to name a few examples. While most people believe that human rights exist, there is little agreement as to what those rights are and should be. The concept of human rights is foundational to politics.

In this post I will make three points.
1. I will describe the ontology (mode of existence) of human rights and try to define the concept of rights clearly.
2. I will argue that universal human rights imply universal human obligations.
3. I will argue that human rights exist independently from rights that are granted by an institution like the state.

Defining Human Rights
Human Rights are rights that a person has in virtue of being human. As such they exist independently from any system of laws enacted by any institution such as a state or government. Some argue that universal human rights do not exist. Jeremy Bentham called the idea of human rights, “rhetorical nonsense”. Bentham thought that because we do not discover human rights in the same way that people have noses, then there must not be any rights “out there” to be found. While it is true that we do not discover human rights in the same way that we discover that water is H2O, it does not follow that human rights do not exist. The reason is because human rights are not observer-independent facts; they are observer-relative facts. The difference between these two types of facts is that observer-relative facts depend on the beliefs and attitudes of human beings while observer-independent facts exist regardless of what human beings think or believe. I think that Bentham did not understand the distinction between observer-relative and observer-independent facts.

An example of an observer-relative fact is money. When one has a $5 bill, he/she is entitled to buy $5 worth of goods. On a $5 note, we read the words, “This note is legal tender for all debts public and private.” If one only believed that observer-independent facts existed, they would naturally want to ask, “How do they know that it is legal tender?…Did they perform some chemical test to see if the $5 bill really was money?” Of course these questions miss the point. We do not discover that a certain piece of paper is money. We declare it to be money. The piece of paper and the ink stains that constitute the $5 bill are NOT sufficient to make it money. We need the actual piece of paper PLUS something else to make it money. That something else is the collective recognition that those pieces of paper count as money. Human rights are the same way. When one is a human being, he or she has the right to perform certain actions, but the mere existence of a certain biological organism that we call a human being is not sufficient to ensure that person has rights. You need a certain biological organism (a human being) PLUS collective beliefs and attitudes that assign those rights.

I think that the concept of human rights will be clearer when one understands how institutional facts are created in general. I describe how they are created in more detail in my post about Social Ontology which is influenced by the philosophy of John Searle. Here I will summarize some of those ideas:

Summary of Social Ontology
There are at least three things that are needed to create institutional facts. You need status functions, collective recognition, and constitutive rules.

Humans are different from all other forms of animal life because humans can impose functions on objects where the objects cannot perform the function solely in virtue of their physical structure. To continue using the example of money, we can assign the function of money to little green pieces of paper. These pieces of paper have the status of money in virtue of the function that we collectively assign to them. There is nothing about the intrinsic physical structure of money that makes it money. It is only money because people collectively recognize it to be money. When we create a function by collective recognition of an assigned status, we are creating a “Status Function”. Status functions are everywhere. Examples of status functions include money, marriages, touchdowns, sacraments, driver’s licenses, presidents, private property, holidays, etc.

Status functions exist as part of a system of “constitutive rules” that are created by language. Constitutive rules create the behavior that they regulate. For example, the rules of chess create the possibility of playing the game of chess. Similarly, status functions are constitutive rules that create observer-relative facts. Constitutive rules of status functions have the logical form “X counts as Y” in context “C”. Here are a few examples:

• A certain area of the field (X) counts as an end zone (Y) in the game of football (C)
• Such and such a sound wave (X) counts as a sentence (Y) in the english language (C)
• This piece of paper (X) counts as money (Y) in the United States (C)

The “X counts as Y in context C” formula is not intended to show how people explicitly think about institutional facts. In most cases institutional facts are not explicitly stated. The formula is just a useful way to think about how people are prepared to regard things or treat them as having a certain status and with that status a function that they cannot perform solely in virtue of their physical structure.

Status functions are always associated with Deontic Powers”. There are positive deontic powers such as rights, permissions, authorizations, certifications, and entitlements. There are also negative deontic powers such as obligations, duties, and requirements. These deontic powers provide us with reasons for acting that are independent of our inclinations and desires. For example, if I recognize something as your property, then I am under an obligation not to take it or use it without your permission. Likewise, if I have the status the president of the United States, then I am authorized to command the military. Status functions are always associated with deontic powers that lock into human rationality by creating “desire-independent reasons for action”. In the game of American football, the end zone creates a conditional deontic power, such that when a player makes it to the end zone with the ball, his team is entitled to 6 points while the opposite team is required to recognize that they have 6 points even though the opposite team would rather not recognize those points.

With this brief foundation in place, I can now more precisely describe universal human rights. A universal human right is described by an observer-relative constitutive rule such that:

• A certain biological organism (X) counts as a human being (Y) in the context of the whole universe (C)
or, it can also be said more religiously:
• A certain creation that is made in the image of God (X) counts as a human being (Y) in the context of the whole universe (C).

The deontic power associated with this constitutive rule is that any organism that satisfies the conditions of the Y term has certain deontic powers (rights and entitlements) such as the right to life or the right to free speech.

Universal Human Rights imply Universal Human Obligations
This analysis reveals some very interesting implications. It shows that all universal human rights imply universal human obligations. Rights are always rights against somebody. If I have a right to walk in a park, then everyone else has an obligation not to interfere with that activity. If A has a right against B, then B has an obligation to A. For example, the bill of rights are rights against Congress, they place congress under an obligation not to interfere with the rights articulated in the Bill of Rights such as the right to free speech.

Put more precisely:
• if a human being (H) has a right to perform action (A), then other people (P) have an obligation (O) not to interfere with (H) performing action (A)

Positive and Negative Rights
There are two main classifications of human rights—positive and negative. The formulation of rights above is an example of a negative right. The type of rights found in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights are negative rights. The rights laid out in the founding documents of America impose an obligation on everyone not to interfere with certain human activities such as the establishment or exercise of religion, or free speech, etc. In other words negative rights are rights that people have to be left alone.

Positive rights on the other hand are rights that impose obligations on everyone to actively do something to ensure that right is satisfied. Positive rights require more than just non-interference. They require positive action in ensuring that everyone receives those rights. The logical form of a positive right would look something like this:
• If a human being (H) has a right to (B), then other people (P) have an obligation (O) to ensure that (H) obtains (B)

A formulation of human rights that can apply to both positive and negative rights can go something like this:
• A Human Being (H) has a human right (R) which generates an obligation (O) for other people (P)

In some situations, the distinction between positive and negative rights is blurred. Nevertheless, I think these concepts can help us to avoid confusion in many cases. For example, if I have the right to life and that right is a negative right, then it is implied that other people are obligated not to harm my life, but it does not imply that people are obligated to provide me with food or expensive healthcare so as to prolong my life as long as possible. Similarly, people in remote parts of the world have a right to life, but since it is a negative right, I have no obligation to provide them with food and healthcare. I think that the right to life can only be properly understood as a negative right in this context. (I will write more on this later.)

Universal Human Rights are Institution-independent
But what happens when other people (P) do not want to fulfill their obligations(O)?
When other people do not want to fulfill their obligations to other human beings, and those human beings are not in a position to guarantee that their own rights are not infringed, then it becomes necessary for some third party to protect human rights by ensuring that other people fulfill their obligations. That third party could be the government which has the obligation to protect human rights by enacting civil laws that are enforceable because the government can use brute force. Therefore our logical formula that describes human rights can be expanded as follows:

• A Human Being (H) has a human right (R) which generates an obligation (O) for other people (P) which right creates a different obligation (O2) for a third party (G) to protect (H) and his/her rights.

An application of this formula would be something like this:

• A human being (Gavin Jensen) has a human right (right to life) which generates and obligation(do not murder Gavin) for other people (everyone in the world) which right creates a different obligation(protect Gavin’s right to life) for a third party(the United States government) to protect (Gavin Jensen’s) right to life.

When the government creates laws, they are obligated to ensure that those laws respect human rights. If human rights are really universal then that means that governments that protect those rights cannot have a system of pure democracy. If they want to protect human rights, then they must enforce certain laws that cannot be changed by popular vote.

What happens when (G) does not fulfill their (O2)?
This is the primary problem with government. You cannot have a G2 with an O3 that ensures that G1 fulfills its O2 because that would create an infinite regress. The framers of the United States Constitution understood this problem and solved it by creating a government that had different branches that each had different interlocking sets of powers that would keep each branch in check.

For human rights to be universal, they must exist outside of the scope of any government. They do not come from a constitution or any other legal document. Constitutions and laws are attempts to protect pre-existing human rights. The purpose of civil law is to implement human rights. Thomas Paine wrote in The Rights of Man that “Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to the enjoyment of which his individual power is not in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection.”

Citizens can sometimes create state recognized rights that do not depend on universal human rights. In these cases the obligations created by those rights should only apply to the citizens of that institution. For instance, if same-sex marriage is not a universal human right and a state wants to grant the right of marriage to same-sex couples, then they can do that but that right would only create an obligation for the citizens of that state. But people outside of that institution would not be obligated to recognize that institution-relative right.

Human rights must be justified by reason
There is one last crucial point about human rights that I want to mention here and address more thoroughly in subsequent posts. Even though status functions exist because of collective recognition of those status functions, it does not mean that anything goes. Some claims to human rights are valid if they can be justified, while other claims are invalid because they cannot be justified. In this post, I have not tried to justify any specific human right. I have only tried to outline what human rights are and explain the nature of their existence. In subsequent posts, I intend to offer justifications for specific human rights. It is my opinion that it is much easier to justify human rights that are negative rights than it is to justify positive human rights. In fact, I will argue that almost all claims of positive human rights are unjustified. Also, I will argue that human rights could not exist if moral relativism were true, nor could they exist if there was no such thing as human nature.

Summary of main points
• Human rights exist just as money exists. Both are observer-relative phenomenon meaning that we do not discover human rights (or money) in the same way that we discover that water is made of H2O.
• Because human beings have a recognized status function, they have deontic powers that include rights to perform certain actions.
• Analyzing human rights in this way makes it very clear that human rights imply human obligations.
• There are two types rights—positive and negative.
• Human rights exist independently of laws created within any institution and apply universally.

Discussion Leave a comment Category Human Nature, Politics, Social Ontology Tags Human rights

God, Language, and Reality

March 17, 2013

In the beginning of the Old Testament, we read “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” It appears in this verse that God caused light to appear through the use of language. How can language cause the world to change? What would reality have to be like for the language to change reality?

Direction of fit
To explore these questions, I want to introduce the concept of direction of fit. Direction of fit refers to the relationship between words and reality. In many cases, words can be used to fit the way the world is. These cases have a ” word-to-world direction of fit”. In other cases, the world changes in order to fit the words that we use. These cases have a “world-to-word direction of fit”. These distinctions will be clearer as I describe the possible uses of language.

5 types of speech acts
There are 5 and only 5 things that can be done with language. There are assertives, expressives, directives, commissives, and declarations. These uses of language are called speech acts. Assertives state the way the world is and thus have the word-to-world direction of fit. Assertives refer to statements, descriptions, classifications, explanations, and clarifications. Eg: “The earth rotates around the sun”. Expressives do not have a direction of fit but they rely on presuppositions that do have a direction of fit. Eg: “Thank you for passing the guacamole” (which presupposes that the hearer did in fact pass the guacamole).

Directives, commissives, and declarations all have a world-to-word direction of fit. Directives change the world by causing the hearer to do something. Directives include orders, commands, requests and refer to pleading, begging, praying, insisting, and suggesting. Eg: “Go to your room.” Commissives change the world by committing the speaker to do something. Commissives refer to vows, threats, pledges, guarantees, contracts, promises, covenants, and oaths. Eg: “I promise to uphold the constitution.” Declaratives actually have a dual direction of fit. They change the world by representing the world as being so changed. Eg: “This meeting is adjourned,” or, “I now pronounce you husband and wife.” A declaration can fail if no one recognizes the declaration. For instance, if I declare that a meeting is adjourned, and the meeting just keeps going on because no one recognizes my speech act, then I have failed to change reality. Therefore declarations are dependent on collective recognition if they are to actually change the world. For a more slightly more thorough introduction to speech acts, check out this post.

Let there be light
So what type of speech act is the utterance, “Let there be light”? It doesn’t have a word-to-world direction of fit so it cannot be an assertive. It does not seem to be expressing an emotion that assumes another fact so it cannot be an expressive. It doesn’t commit the speaker to a specific action so it is not a commissive. The only possibilities left are directives and declarations, or it might not be a speech act at all. I will examine each of these remaining possibilities.

Is it a declaration?
If the speech act, “let there be light” is a declaration, then God is changing the world by representing it as being so changed. However, when human beings make a declaration they can only change social reality. For example, the declaration, “This note is legal tender for all debts public and private” only applies to the status function of money which is a social fact that requires collective recognition. Human beings cannot change the brute facts of reality through declarations alone. For example, we cannot change reality by saying, “I hereby declare that I am a billionaire.” Nor can we change reality by declaring something like, “Let there be good weather.” No amount of collective recognition is going to change those brute facts because beliefs alone cannot cause anything to happen without physical action. If the utterance “let there be light” is a declaration, then I cannot make sense it for the reasons just stated. It would presuppose a type of metaphysical idealism which I believe is self-contradictory.

Is it a directive?
Directives are supposed to change the world by causing the hearer to perform some action. The utterance “Let there be light” could be a command to the light itself or it could be a command to an unspecified hearer who is being commanded to create the light through the use of some sort of light-generating technology. If light could be commanded, then that would imply that light has some sort of conscious awareness such that it could understand the meaning of the words and volitionally respond to the directive. In Helaman 12: 8-22, it seems as though Nephi is suggesting that matter obeys God’s word which seems to imply that it is conscious. Orson Pratt is said to have more explicitly supported this hylozoistic view. However, I think there is enough room for interpretation to question this interpretation of the scriptures. If light does not have conscious awareness, then some unspecified hearer such as an angel turned on the light after being commanded by God.

Maybe it isn’t a speech act at all
The last possibility is that the phrase, “Let there be light” is not a speech act at all but just a soundwave that triggers a preprogrammed event that causes the lights to turn on. For example, when I ask Siri (on my iPhone) to launch an app, I say something like “launch Angry Birds.” But the meaning of my words did not cause Siri to open the app. It was merely the soundwave that caused Siri to open the app. Siri could have been programmed to launch the app when it heard the soundwave, “Do NOT launch Angry Birds”. Or it could have been programmed to launch the app when it heard the sound wave, “Boom Shakalaka!” Likewise some light generating technology could have been preprogrammed to respond to God’s words. It could have been programmed to respond to a particular vibration of his vocal cords, or some bodily movement, or perhaps the technology could have responded to some form of thought detection.

Conclusion
In this post, I have not been as interested in what God caused to be with His words. I am more interested in how God uses words to cause things to be. Understanding how words can change reality can give us insights into the metaphysical nature of reality. Using the example of light, God’s words could have been a declaration, a directive, or they could have been a soundwave that triggers a non-volitional technology. In my opinion, it doesn’t make sense that the words could be a declaration for the reasons stated above. I am also skeptical of the speech-as-a technology-trigger explanation because I am not aware of any example where God’s words are used this way. Intuitively, it does not seem Godlike for God’s words to not have any meaning in this way. Therefore, I believe that the utterance, “Let there be light” was a directive. Either matter volitionally obeyed God’s words or God was commanding another volitional being (or beings) to cause a series of events to take place in order for earth to have light.

—

Scriptures about the power of God’s words:
Jacob 4:9
Helaman 12:7-21
1 Ne. 17:46

Discussion 1 Comment Category Language, Metaphysics, Religion, Science, Social Ontology

Philosophy, Science, and Scientism

February 25, 2013

As a kid, I loved learning science. One of the best learning experiences I ever had was performing science experiments in 7th and 8th grade. One experiment showed that mice that listened to classical music could remember their way through a maze much better than mice who listened to rock music. Another experiment showed that ivy plants grew much better when exposed to classical music while plants exposed to hard rock music grew brown and withered. These experiments gave me great excitement and confidence that I had discovered something about the universe that I could prove to others through observation.

Because of that experience, I can see why many people have a great optimism about science and what it can do. Some people think that science can solve all problems and answer every question. Some people think that science is simply synonymous with truth. At times, I have even been tempted to use the word “science” in this way. The view that science can provide answers to every question is called scientism. A weaker form of scientism is the view that science provides a superior method for gaining knowledge about the universe. I will try to show why scientism is a false by explaining the relationship between science and philosophy.

Science is an ambiguous term
The first point of clarification about science is that the word “science” has been used in so many ways that it’s meaning is rather ambiguous. Science has become an honorific term and every discipline wants to call itself a science. Indeed, everyone has an incentive to call what they believe “science” in order to give the impression of unquestionable authority. The philosopher John Searle has humorously remarked that disciplines that explicitly call themselves science are probably not science such as military science, Christian science, and even cognitive science and social science. Disciplines that we typically think have earned the right to be called “sciences” rarely have the word science in them such as physics, chemistry, or astronomy.

Science and philosophy address different types of questions
Philosophy and science are similar because they are both universal in subject matter and they are both tools that can be used to gain knowledge and understanding. Philosophy and science are different because science deals with questions that can be answered in a systematic way, while philosophy generally deals with questions that we do not yet know how to answer in a systematic way. According to Searle, “When knowledge becomes systematic, and especially when systematic knowledge becomes secure to the point that we are confident that it is knowledge as opposed to mere opinion, we are more inclined to call it “science” and less inclined to call it “philosophy”. One of the goals of philosophy is to think rigorously and clearly about questions in a conceptual way so that they can become scientific questions. Within this context one can see that all scientific questions were once philosophical questions. Philosophy provides the necessary conceptual analysis that makes science possible in the first place. The scientific method itself was conceived by philosophers.

This relationship between science and philosophy shows why science is always right and philosophy is always wrong. “As soon as we think we really know something, we stop calling it philosophy and start calling it science” says Searle. Anthony Gottlieb, the author of The Dream of Reason, has similarly argued that the methods of thinking are often co-opted by other disciplines giving the illusion that philosophy is never making progress. With this background, one can see that it is a mistake to think that science is superior to philosophy. The christening of a new scientific discipline is really just the success of philosophical inquiry. The fact that philosophy deals with questions for which we do not yet have a systemic way of answering also shows why there can be no such thing as an expert philosopher in the same way that there can be an expert on molecular biology. Philosophers will rarely share the luxury that scientists have of general agreement and conformity on a given subject. However, this does mean that anything goes in philosophy. In many ways, the nature of philosophy demands an even greater degrees of clarity, rigor, and precision in thinking about conceptual issues.

Example of philosophy and neuroscience
Recent developments in neuroscience provide a vivid example of the picture I am trying to illustrate about the relationship between philosophy and science. Until recently, neuroscientists said that they could not study consciousness, nor could they get funding even if they wanted to. Not too long ago, it was very difficult for anyone studying consciousness to get tenure. The standard objection from scientists went something like this: “Science is objective, consciousness is subjective, therefore science can never study consciousness.” Philosophers working in the field of the philosophy of mind were able to show that the scientists were making a fallacious assumption. The subjective/objective distinction has two senses. There is an ontological sense and an epistemic sense of each word. Ontology refers to modes of existence while epistemology refers to ways of knowing. When scientists said, “Science is objective” they were referring to the epistemic sense of the word “objective”. When they said “consciousness is subjective” they were referring to the ontological sense of the word “subjective”. Philosophers were able to convince neuroscientists to study consciousness by showing that there could be an epistemically objective science about an ontologically subjective domain. Now neuroscience is searching for the illusive NCC (neural correlates of consciousness) in large part thanks to philosophers who thought rigorously about these issues.

Despite some apparent progress in neuroscience, the oxford philosopher Peter Hacker and neuroscientist Maxwell Bennett have co-authored the recent book, “The Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience” that shows why neuroscientists are still plagued with many serious conceptual errors that are hindering the progress of knowledge and understanding in neuroscience. This could be one explanation for why progress in neuroscience is moving so slowly.

Scientism implies a false conception of philosophy
It is ironic for those who tend toward scientism to be so quick to dismiss philosophy. Stephen Hawking provides a good example of the irony of scientism. In The Grand Design, he wrote, “…philosophy is dead. It has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly in physics. As a result scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge…” This view is quite absurd once one understands the correct relationship between philosophy and science. It assumes that science and philosophy are independent of each other and competing to answer the same questions. Not only does Stephen Hawking fail to see the relationship between science and philosophy, he fails to see how often he engages in philosophy by saying things like “philosophy is dead” or advocating model-dependent realism for example. Others who claim to prefer science over philosophy are constantly making philosophical generalizations about subjects that science cannot answer such as the existence of God or the nature of the human mind. Hawking, like so many who have been seduced by scientism, can’t seem to resist expropriating the word “science” to refer to whatever they think is true.

Conclusion
Philosophy and science form a symbiotic relationship. Both are aimed at knowledge and understanding, but each addresses different types of questions. Science addresses things like “What causes the tides to rise?” Philosophy addresses questions such as “What is the nature of causation?” “Philosophy” is in large part the name for all the questions that we do not know how to answer in the systematic way that is characteristic of science. Although I love science and will use it whenever I can, the questions that interest me most currently cannot be fully addressed by science. These questions include, “What is the nature of the mind?” “Do human beings have free will?” “Which form of government creates the most prosperity and happiness?” “How is society possible?” “Where do human rights come from?” “What is the nature of God?” “How can I be a better person?”

Strong scientism is the belief that all questions can be answered by science. Weak scientism is the belief that science is a categorically superior way of knowing. Strong scientism is self-contradictory since it is circular to try to use science to validate science. Weak scientism is false because it assumes a false conception of the relationship between philosophy and science. Science and philosophy answer different types of questions and they are both important. However, without the conceptual analysis of philosophy, science could not be possible. Here is a fitting quote from Albert Einstein to end this post:

So many people today, and even professional scientists, seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is, in my opinion, the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.

Discussion 5 Comments Category Science Tags Scientism

Sicko and the liberal narrative

February 18, 2013

My wife had an assignment to watch the Michael Moore documentary Sicko for her writing class. I watched it with her so that we could discuss it and generate writing ideas. Sicko’s message is very simple: The healthcare system in America is bad. The healthcare systems in Canada, England, and Cuba are good. America should be more like them.

As a liberal, Michael Moore looks at the world through the lens of an oppressed vs. oppressor narrative. In other words, outcomes in an economy are the result of someone’s insincere intentions. It is because of this narrative that Moore believes that the American Healthcare system is worse than other countries. Moore finds stories and statistics that fit this narrative. I will argue that Moore’s way of looking at the world causes him (and liberals in general) to misinterpret the facts. Once these facts are interpreted correctly, I believe they will show (1) that the healthcare system in America is not as bad as Moore claims, (2) that government-run healthcare systems are not as good as Moore claims, and (3) that the negative aspects of the American healthcare system are caused by the well-meaning government policies that Moore recommends.

Stories
The first way that Moore’s movie tries to make America’s healthcare system look bad is by showing personal stories of Americans who had a negative experiences with the healthcare system. These stories were truly touching. I felt bad for the people who had to make difficult choices when it came to paying for healthcare. One couple had to move in with their grown up children. Another 79-year old man had to go back to work to pay for his medications. Anyone could sympathize with these stories. Concerning the content of the stories, there was nothing to disagree with.

Disagreement does arise however when Moore tries to use these stories as evidence of his oppressor vs. oppressed narrative. According to Moore’s narrative, the people in these stories are oppressed by health insurance companies and politicians who support free markets. The only way to help these oppressed people is to provide a government-run healthcare system.

This narrative is confused for two reasons. First, oppression usually involves the use of force and coercion. Free markets by definition are free from coercion. For example, businesses cannot force people to buy their services. They can only attract customers by offering some mutually beneficial product or service. Government coercion is only justified when contracts are broken or misrepresented. Second, real oppression is often caused by government-run healthcare. Since government-run healthcare systems must ration care, they often deny care to elderly patients or make patients wait. For example, Sally Pipes’ mother (a Canadian) died prematurely because she was denied a colonoscopy for being too old. A 31-year old man in Sault St. Marie, Canada was told he had to wait five years for an appointment to get a physical. In America, young people are oppressed when state laws in New Jersey and Massachusetts price young people out of the market by forcing insurance companies to cover more than young people reasonably need or want. These laws raise prices by forcing insurance companies to treat every customer roughly the same.

Personal stories do a better job of heightening emotions than justifying claims on either side. Without a correct context and perspective, emotional stories can hinder one’s ability to think clearly about complex issues. In my opinion, these emotions would be more productively channeled against the ill-conceived government policies that Moore recommends. Until one looks at the big picture, it is difficult to come to an informed conclusion about whether or not any healthcare system is bad or good by looking at stories alone. Statistics might be a better light as long as they are interpreted correctly.

Statistics
Michael Moore uses several statistics to tell his “America…bad, government-run healthcare…good” narrative. For instance, Moore cites the Census Bureau statistic that 50 million Americans do not have health insurance. I want to address this statistic because I heard Obama repeatedly use this statistic when he was promoting the Obamacare. This statistic comes from the U.S. Census Bureau that reported in 2007 that 45.7 million (not 50) Americans do not have health insurance. Who are these uninsured people and why don’t they have health insurance? Do these people fit into Moore’s oppressed vs. oppressor narrative?

According to the Harvard economist, Greg Mankiw, this statistic is very misleading:

To start with, the 47 million includes about 10 million residents who are not American citizens. Many are illegal immigrants. Even if we had national health insurance, they would probably not be covered.

The number also fails to take full account of Medicaid, the government’s health program for the poor. For instance, it counts millions of the poor who are eligible for Medicaid but have not yet applied. These individuals, who are healthier, on average, than those who are enrolled, could always apply if they ever needed significant medical care. They are uninsured in name only.

The 47 million also includes many who could buy insurance but haven’t. The Census Bureau reports that 18 million of the uninsured have annual household income of more than $50,000, which puts them in the top half of the income distribution. About a quarter of the uninsured have been offered employer-provided insurance but declined coverage.

Of course, millions of Americans have trouble getting health insurance. But they number far less than 47 million, and they make up only a few percent of the population of 300 million.

Any reform should carefully focus on this group to avoid disrupting the vast majority for whom the system is working. We do not nationalize an industry simply because a small percentage of the work force is unemployed. Similarly, we should be wary of sweeping reforms of our health system if they are motivated by the fact that a small percentage of the population is uninsured.

While it is convenient for liberals like Moore and Obama to cite this statistic to tell their story of a bad American system, further analysis of this statistic tell a different story—that the American healthcare system is not as bad as they claimed. This statistic was used over and over to advertise Obamacare. If false advertising is a form of oppression, then those who marketed Obamacare are guilty.

Another statistic that Michael Moore uses to support his narrative is that America’s life expectancy is lower than countries that have government-run healthcare systems. While it appears to be true that Americans have a lower life expectancy than several developed countries, it would be an error to use this statistic as evidence of a poor healthcare system. For example, a country could have the best medical system in the world, but its citizens could have a lower life expectancy because they might make poor health choices, or they might have a high homicide rate, or unusually high automobile accident rates.

If you want to accurately compare the healthcare systems of countries, you can’t use homicide rates, and automobile accidents, or even obesity statistics as evidence against the healthcare system. Unfortunately, it turns out that America does have unusually high homicide rates, automobile accident rates, and high obesity. According to ABC news correspondent John Stossel, “our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada.” In the book, The Business of Healthcare, American’s live longer than people in every other western country once you factor out people who die from car accidents and homicides. As Harvard economist Greg Mankiw has noted, “Maybe these differences have lessons for traffic laws and gun control, but they teach us nothing about our system of health care.” On his blog Greg Mankiw also suggests, “Given how overweight we Americans are compared with citizens of other countries, it is amazing that we live as long as we do. If we further standardized life expectancy by body-mass index, the U.S. lead in health outcomes would likely grow even larger.” Again, the American healthcare system is not as bad as Moore makes it seem in his Documentary.

Conclusion
Although Moore might be more extreme than most liberals, I believe that his way of looking at the world is representative of how those who lean toward liberal policies in general interpret stories and statistics. They tend to believe that economic outcomes are caused by some oppressive agent and that government can make things better by stopping oppressive forces within an economy.

On a side note, it is interesting to contemplate why liberals such as Michael Moore and Obama see the world through this narrative. I believe that it is very natural and intuitive to explain various phenomena by appealing to some purposeful activity. Cavemen made the error of believing that some volitional spirit caused the movement of leaves fluttering in the wind. I think that creationists likewise make the mistake of assuming that the biological order that we observe must come from a purposeful being. According to evolutionary psychology, these intuitions may have provided some evolutionary advantage by making organisms more alert when they heard noises in the bushes at night. I believe that the liberal narrative is in error because it depends somewhat on these intuitions. Sicko is a good example of these intuitions.

So what is the right way of interpreting stories and statistics regarding economic issues such as healthcare? Instead of assuming that outcomes in an economy are the result of volitional activity, one could view outcomes as the result of non-volitional market forces. These non-random forces transmit information in the form of prices which provide feedback to businesses and consumers who change their behavior according to changing circumstances. This way of looking at the world is less intuitive and more difficult to understand than the oppressed vs. oppressor narrative. The purpose of this paragraph was not to justify this way of thinking, but simply to provide a contrasting narrative by which to interpret stories and statistics.

Although, there are many other errors in Moore’s films that I could have addressed. I have tried to show that the liberal narrative leads supporters of government-run healthcare to take away the wrong lessons from stories and to misinterpret statistics.

Discussion 4 Comments Category Politics Tags Healthcare, Liberals, Sicko, Statistics, Visions, Worldviews

Why I believe in God

February 4, 2013

In this post I want to give reasons for believing in God. This post is prompted by comments from my friend Bennion in a previous post. I will first provide reasons for believing in God that I do not accept. Then I will give some reasons why I do believe in God.

Reasons for believing in God that I do not accept

1. I do not believe in God as a matter of some scientific hypothesis.
Some atheists ask for evidence for the “God Hypothesis”. I don’t like that phrase because it implies that the believer is supposed to make some scientific claim about why there is a God. I don’t believe that one comes to know God by looking around and finding gaps in our scientific knowledge, and then invoking God as an explanation for those gaps. That is not the right way to think about reasons for believing in God. I think the right way to think about knowing God is to think about how one knows that they love their spouse. I don’t have a “Wife Hypothesis” to explain why I experience my wife’s existence.

2. I do not believe in intelligent design arguments for the existence of God.
Although I believe that there is probably some intelligent influence in the process of evolution, I do not think that influence can be proven scientifically. There are some well thought out philosophical arguments that involve intelligent design, and I do not think they are all as bad as naturalists claim they are. However, I still do not find them convincing enough to count them as evidence for believing in God.

3. I do not believe in any of the traditional theistic philosophical arguments for God.
For instance, I do not believe in the ontological argument or any cosmological argument for the existence of God. Concerning these arguments, one famous LDS philosopher, Truman Madsen, once said,

Many of you will encounter, if you haven’t, traditional rational arguments for the existence of God. They are all of them afflicted with fallacies. They presuppose in the premises what they claim to demonstrate in the conclusion. And, further, they presuppose in their premises something about the very nature of God.

4. I do not believe that belief without evidence is an appropriate reason for believing in God.
Atheists often claim that faith is just belief without evidence, or it is just a way to protect a weak hypothesis. I do not accept these mischaracterizations of faith. Faith is belief with evidence. As Orson Pratt, an early apostle of the LDS church said,

“Faith or belief is the result of evidence presented to the mind. Without evidence, the mind cannot have faith in anything…As evidence precedes faith, the latter should be weak or strong in proportion to the weakness or strength of the evidence … The weakness or strength of faith will, therefore, in all cases, be in proportion to the weakness or strength of the impressions, produced upon the mind by evidence.”

Reasons for believing in God that I accept
I believe that there are several reasons for believing in God. I could tell many personal stories, but I will just give one story or example per reason.

1. I believe in God because of personal experiences
There are several simple experiences that give me reason to believe that there is loving Heavenly Father looking out for me. One time my mother and I were driving home from Lake Tahoe and our van was stuck in the mud. I don’t know exactly where we were, but I remember there were a lot of trees around. We were far away from help at a time when people did not have cell phones. We tried for a long time to get out of the mud by driving back and forth. Finally, we prayed for help, tried again, and immediately got out of the mud and travelled home safely.

2. I believe in God based on answers to prayer
When I was around 18, I read the book of Mormon and prayed to know if it was true. I had an overwhelming powerful experience that confirmed to me that it was a true. I have had similar experiences, but that time it was particularly powerful and it has stayed with me throughout my life.

3. I believe in God because of revelation.
There have been times in my life when I have received powerful insights similar to my experience when I prayed about the book of Mormon. What was unique about these experiences is that I wasn’t praying or asking for the insights that I received. Due to the personal nature of some of these experiences (there are at least 2 that I remember clearly), I would rather not share the specific stories that relate to this reason. I will simply convey that I arrived at some conclusions about secular issues through spiritual means. Only after those experiences did I learn of secular evidence for those conclusions.

4. I believe in the testimony of witnesses
I believe Joseph Smith’s testimony that he did in fact see God and Jesus Christ. In Joseph’s own words,

“I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me…I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it.“

I believe in the testimony of the living apostles and prophets that have a special witness of the living Christ.

5. I believe that the Book of Mormon provides evidence for Joseph Smith’s story.
The Book of Mormon is an incredible book. It is evidence that anyone can read and examine. It is available for anyone to scrutinize and many have tried. If one is sincere and open to truth, I believe they will be truly moved by its contents. I think that it is impossible that Joseph Smith could have made it all up.

6. Many other reasons
There are dozens of other reasons for my belief in God including intuition, pragmatic considerations, logical consistency, and other personal experiences.

Concluding remarks
In most cases, people cannot choose their convictions. For example, if I offered to give you $1000 if you could believe that you were 20 feet tall, you would not be able to do it. When I examine my beliefs and convictions, I find that I do believe in God. The fact that we do not choose our convictions does not mean we can never change our beliefs over time. Nor does certainty imply incorrigibility. For example, I changed my mind about the theory of evolution after sincerely considering the evidence. I have documented that experience here.

In writing these reasons for believing in God, I know that I am opening myself up to scrutiny. I often consider the possibility that God does not exist and I am open to the possibility that I could be mistaken about my beliefs. Many skeptics will think that many of these arguments are easy targets and perhaps not even worth addressing. Since most of the books I read are written by atheists (that is just the nature of philosophy), I encounter many arguments against my belief in God. I consider those arguments carefully and sincerely. After examining and scrutinizing those arguments, I find intellectually and spiritually satisfying responses and I find that I still believe in a loving, personal Heavenly Father and the truthfulness of His gospel.

I want to end this post by recommending reading the testimony of one of my philosophy professors at BYU. You can find a link to her testimony here.

Discussion 36 Comments Category Religion Tags Faith, Knowledge, LDS theology, Mormonism, Testimony

Theism, Atheism, and Mormonism

February 2, 2013

In the 1990s cartoon show Animaniacs, there was a carefree toddler character named Mindy. She would often annoy other characters by repeatedly asking “Why?” until the characters became flustered or didn’t have an answer. I thought she was so annoying because she wasn’t asking “why?” to gain understanding, but because she enjoyed pushing people’s buttons.

Unlike Mindy, genuinely curious people ask “why?” to arrive at an explanation. To explain something is to show why certain effects follow from certain causes. If we ask why enough, we will eventually arrive at an explanation that does not have any explanation itself. In other words, all explanations bottom out in some cause that itself did not have a cause. Some have referred to this final explanation as the uncaused causer. The question I want to explore is “Who or what is the uncaused causer?”. This is the same question as “Where do explanations end?”.

I want to explore these questions by contrasting atheism and theism. Then I want to describe what I think is implied by Mormon theology.

Volitional vs. Non-volitional explanations
There are two ways to answer the question, “Where do explanations end?” The answer will be different depending on whether one is a theist or an atheist. Traditional theists such as Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe in a volitional explanation. I am using the word “volition” to refer to the idea that all effects are caused by some being or agent. Hence, for a theist all explanations end in some intelligent designer or God that has always existed.

Atheists, on the other hand, believe in a non-volitional explanation. Explanations end in something like the laws of physics, or nature in general, (or even just gravity according to Stephen Hawking). Some atheists say that they simply don’t know how to explain existence in general, but still hold that no volitional being could be the uncaused cause of the universe.

Example
If we ask the question “why is the sky blue?”. We will come to some explanation that describes the behavior of lightwaves when they interact with particles in the atmosphere. After we come to that explanation we can ask, “Why do lightwaves behave that way?” Describing the laws of quantum electrodynamics might constitute an explanation for that question, but then we could just ask, “why are the laws of quantum electrodynamics like that?” An atheist ought to answer that nature is just that way and that is where explanation ends because there is no God. A traditional theist would answer that God created the laws that way and that is where explanation ends.

Where do explanations end for Mormon theology?
In my opinion Mormon theology also gives an answer to the question “Where do explanations end?” Before I suggest what Mormon theology implies about this question I first want to be clear that the LDS church has no official position about these questions and many smart members of the LDS church may disagree with my interpretation. With that caveat out of the way I want to suggest that Mormon theology makes the most sense within the context of a non-volitional explanation.

“But wait Gavin, I thought you just defended the volitional explanation in the last two posts!” (here and here)

My intent was not so much to defend the traditional theist position, but to show that the theist position is not as irrational as atheists make it out to be. I also wanted to show that the atheist arguments against traditional theist are not as powerful as they might first seem.

“But Mormons aren’t atheists, why would you take the atheist side on this issue‽”

One can still believe in God and believe that God did not create the universe. The first prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Joseph Smith, taught that God did not and in fact could not create the universe. He said:

God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end. (King Follett Discourse)

Smith also declared that God could not create the spirits.

I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself. Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement. (King Follett Discourse)

Therefore, according to Joseph Smith, explanations just end in the elements and principles of nature. No volitional being did or could have created them. Volitional beings (spirits or intelligences) are coeternal with the elements that have always existed.

Concerning eternal elements, we learn in the Doctrine and Covenants, which is official church scripture, that everything is made of matter:

There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter. (D&C 131: 7-8)

From these passages, there appears to be two possibilities for the explanation of volitional beings such as God. Either matter arranged in some way that made intelligence possible. Or, matter itself has the property of some sort of intelligence. If volitional beings are eternal as Joseph Smith claims, then it seems that the latter explanation—commonly referred to as panpsychism in the philosophical literature—appears to fit better with LDS theology. On an interesting note, the philosopher Galen Strawson (who is an atheist) argues that one cannot be a real naturalist without believing in panpsychism. (However, I am still open to other possibilities of explanations for volitional beings.) Therefore God, does not explain the existence of matter, but matter could explain the existence of God.

According to Joseph Smith, God did not always have his knowledge and power. In other words, at one time, He was not God. He became God by becoming more intelligent than other spirits. These passages by Joseph Smith suggest that God was once simple and then became complex (The comments of this post provide some context for this paragraph).

Conclusion
Theists believe that all explanations end with a volitional being such as God. Atheists believe that all explanations end in non-volitional causes. Mormon theology suggests that Mormons ought to agree with atheists that all explanations end in non-volitional causes. I think that members of the LDS church with philosophical interests are in a good position to resolve many contentions between atheism and traditional theism.

Discussion Leave a comment Category Metaphysics, Religion, Science

Stephen Hawking, Gravity, and God

January 28, 2013

When people claim there is a conflict between science and religion, they are usually referring to some alleged conflict between the theory of evolution and a belief in a designer God. However, sometimes an argument is put forward that is supposed to show a conflict between the laws of physics and a belief in God. Stephen Hawking puts forth such an argument in his 2010 book The Grand Design. I will summarize his main arguments and offer a rebuttal against them.

Part 1: Hawking, Gravity, and God
In The Grand Design Stephen Hawking along with his co-author Leonard Mlodinow put forth a controversial candidate for a theory of everything called M-theory. The bulk of the book is spent explaining this theory which is really just a collection of various theories that try to explain the universe. In the book, Hawking and Mlodinow conclude “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing” (pg 180). Anyone with a little training in philosophy can immediately identify the self-contradictory nature of this claim. Hawking is simultaneously claiming that the universe was created from nothing and something. If we say that X creates Y, then we are already presupposing the existence of X in order to account for the existence of Y. In the first part of the above quote, Hawkings is presupposing the existence of gravity (X) to explain the existence of the universe (Y). Therefore the universe is not created from nothing, it is created from gravity.

But Hawking doesn’t stop there. He piles another contradiction on top of his first. In the second part of the above quote, he asserts that, “the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” If we say that X creates X we already pressupose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. This is logically incoherent. If any scientific theory comes to such an obviously false conclusion, then instead of holding on to the theory, one should immediately recognize that they have made a mistake somewhere in the premises.

Throughout his book, Hawking suggests that there is no God because the laws of physics explain the existence of the universe. He writes, “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” (pg 180). But how then does Hawking explain the existence of his metaphorical “blue touch paper” that set the universe going? How does Hawking explain the existence of gravity in the first place? He doesn’t! He simply presupposes that it exists. Hawking does not know how to explain gravity. To him that is simply where explanations come to an end.

Then why is he so confident in suggesting that God does not exist? Perhaps he has this argument in mind:

Some would claim the answer to these questions is that there is a God who chose to create the universe that way. It is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God. (pg 172)

This is the same argument that Richard Dawkins put forward in The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion. I offered a rebuttal to that argument in my previous post. Hawking and Dawkins seem to suggest that using God as an explanation for the universe is somehow invalid because it cannot explain the existence of God himself. But if that was true then Hawking’s argument is also invalid. One can equally use Hawking’s argument against him. Below is Hawking’s same quote but I replaced the word God with Gravity:

Some would claim the answer to these questions is that there is Gravity which created the universe that way. It is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is Gravity, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who or what created Gravity.

Believing that all explanations end in gravity is not logically incoherent nor is it intellectually unacceptable. But, believing that all explanations end in God is likewise not logically incoherent nor intellectual unacceptable. Certain beliefs about gravity (like the one mentioned above) or certain beliefs about God may be shown to be fallacious, but the general belief that all explanations end somewhere is not. What is intellectually unacceptable is pretending that one’s scientific conclusions show that God does not exist.

Part 2: Hawking, Scientists, and Philosophy
Hawking’s logical errors can be explained by his ignorance of philosophy. In the beginning of The Grand Design Hawking lays out some questions about reality including the question, “Why is there something instead of nothing?” Referring to these questions, Hawking writes, “Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. It has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly in physics. As a result scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.” (pg 5)

The irony of this statement is not only that Hawking uses philosophical arguments throughout his whole book, but that the statement “philosophy is dead” is itself a philosophical proposition. Hawking cannot be making a scientific claim here. He is making a metaphysical claim about science. Therefore even when Hawking is trying to dismiss philosophy, he is contradicting himself. I agree with the philosopher Daniel Dennett (a militant atheist) who said, “There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.” (Daniel Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea)

I believe that scientists like Dawkins and Hawking hurt scientific progress when they pretend that their own philosophical conclusions about God are scientific. Dawkins and Hawking are popular names in science. Their philosophical pronouncements cause confusion because it gives lay people the false impression that they must choose between God or science.

Concluding thoughts
When I first read The Grand Design in 2010, I did not have enough understanding of philosophy to see the flaws in Hawkings writing. Now I think the flaws are quite apparent. It is common to be confronted with ideas that contradict one’s own beliefs and experiences. One does not need to hastily give up their convictions when they encounter conflicting viewpoints. The appropriate response when confronted with contradictory beliefs is to search, ponder, and pray. One may find that the beliefs only appear to contradict when in reality they compliment each other. Or, if one is sincerely looking for truth, he or she may be persuaded to give up their old belief in favor of a new and better belief. Sometimes we just don’t know enough to reconcile conflicting beliefs and must live with the hope that they will one day be resolved. In these cases it is appropriate to be humble and remember Hamlet’s counsel, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

Discussion 3 Comments Category Logic, Metaphysics, Religion, Science Tags Atheism, Stephen Hawking

Gavin Jensen

Books on the Political Divide

Philosophy, Science, and Scientism

Sicko and the liberal narrative

Why I believe in God

Theism, Atheism, and Mormonism

Stephen Hawking, Gravity, and God

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta