Natural Born Liars

I have finally managed to find some time to start in on one of my Christmas presents, Why We Lie by David Smith. While I haven't gotten very far into it, I did find one early passage interesting (page 27).

Deprssives, they [mental health professionals] claim, believe false ideas about themselves and others. They are self-deceived and out of touch with reality. Irrational, self-deceptive thinking is alleged to be a factor distinguishing depressed people from "normal" ones, but this psychiatric homily turns out to be badly mistaken. Scientifc research leads to the opposite conculsion that depressives seem to have a better grasp of reality than the "normal" psychiatrists tha treat them.

Further on the author continues;

Allor and Abramson found that the depressed individuals assessed both situations [credit for personal roles in a game] far more realistically . The rather startling conclusion is that depressives may suffer from a defecit in self-deception.... If mental health depends upon a liberal dose of self-deception then perhaps, as the philosopher David Nyberg wryly remarks, "Self knowledge isn't all that it's cracked up to be."

If this is true, I wonder how many people could survive if they were to constantly view events around them accurately? Now obviously the way "accurate" is being used in the quotes probably only accepts immediate judgments, discounting long term possibilities. I think perhaps this might be a big difference between depressives and non-depressives. Nonetheless, how many people would be able to struggle through life without many of the dreams, hopes and illusions we create for ourselves?

I certainly think some can. Tenacious individuals like this may be rare, but like one of my favorite movies, Touching The Void illustrates, some people are less inclined to give up than others. Indeed I wonder if part of this trait isn't a key element to this life.

To many, the apparent lack of divine intervention in catastrophes is hard to fathom. The capabilities humans have for causing suffering to each other is huge. Many people reconcile these events by assuming the existence of a greater good. Others may assume a more hands off role for god where these events are just natural consequences of our existence (for instance removing pain sensors from our body would make life a less painful experience, but it may make a lot of other things, like survival, more difficult, if not impossible). In terms of David Smith's ideas, I wonder what the consequences are of a depressed, and hence (from the afore mentioned perspective) more accurate view of god are?

Are many people strong enough to make it through life with the apathy and loss of hope that seem to accompany the accurate view of reality associated with this take on depression? Would an increase in accuracy offset associated losses in drive, motivation and other factors? In general, would we even be able to live with a less fantastical view of god?

Now many people would say that knowledge of god and depression just aren't compatible. I would tend to agree, however, I would add that I don't think the stereotypical view of depression is being discussed here. I think what is at hand is whether or not idealized beliefs, and the accompanying loss of accuracy they usually hold, are always worth the help they give us to function?

Personally, I think many of the problems associated with "realistic" views are situational. Problems occur because of discrepancies with past perspectives, irrational desires for things to change, and knowledge that others seem to function quite well with a rosier, if less accurate take on things. Most people tend to be content when they go with the flow of the crowd. Indeed I think we underestimate the role that culture plays on what we are able to accept and enjoy. Thus my view that many of our conceptions of god are perhaps based more on what we would like to believe that what may actually be real.

The unification of aberrance

While I am sure most people have already checked out the Questions for Terryl Givens post, I thought I would put a link to it because of how interesting a post it is for those that may have missed it.

To me the most interesting point was how mormonism is a great resource to look at how canonized scripture evolves. Honestly, I think I have been too myopic to really see mormonism as being one of the few religions that can provide a source for this study. While I’m sure that some other aberrant cultic groups have developed their own scriptures, I think the wide spread use of The Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price certainly does put mormonism in a league of its own for study. After all it seems like many religions proudly base themselves on ineffability that is created by never questioning the environment that preceeds the canonization of scripture. While this certainly does foster a world view that seems beyond question, it seems to avoid the fundamental question of why one particular paradigm is chosen over another one with similar internal consistency.

For instance, if some of the more divisive creeds had gone another way, I don’t doubt that fundamentalist’s convictions would be any less strong. Perhaps this is because what matters isn’t so much what is believed, but how ardently one believes it.

Now this flies in the face of the extreme protectionism evangelicals have towards the bible, and the correct interpretations that lie therein. It also appears to contradict the rigidity of interpretation muslim fundamentalists bestow on their scripture. Are these views even possible if one is intimate with the way scripture is created? For instance if Paul talked about how he really wished he could re-write some of his epistles to make things clearer, would fundamentalism even be possible? Would fundamentalism be possible if, as an associate of John you heard him describe his vision in the same way one might describe a monumental event they saw, accurate but always with slightly different takes, insights, and focus.

And though these colorations to scriptural history are almost a certainty, their evolution to dogmatic unequivocancy is rarely studied. Allowing that to happen is shaking the bedrock of a fundamentalist faith. No wonder it is guarded so carefully, couched in references to blasphemy, divine denial and cultish clandestiny. And so one denies that the Bible could ever exist one jot or tittle different. Indeed many try to latch onto the security of fundamental faith by applying the same fastidious housekeeping to Joseph’s translations and revelations. People purify themselves within a paradigm of their choosing. For some it is the Bible, for some the Koran, for others the standard works. While this shows conviction to God, the if one is fully purified from their environment, they will never be able to see out of their creation. Hence the need for perfect pointers and an innerrant resources. And hence a blissful existence in a world that can only be partially revealed. I wonder if the fundamentalist's demands for the immediate self satisfaction of perfection don't require us to always be the culmination of existence. There can be no waiting for more information, this leads to revolution and change. There can be no ambiguity because this means absolute certainty has been superceeded by another design.

Unfortunately, evolution in use of modern revelation seems to indicate that certainty isn’t necessarily a product of revelation. It may be a product of the canonization of thought. The canonization of thought occurs because there is a need to unify. But with so many possibilities to choose from, people have a nasty way of limiting themselves to a single choice. Perhaps revelation really isn’t meant to get everyone on the same page, it is meant to keep us from focusing on a single page that we invariably turn into a limiting agent.

Cultural Redoubts

It usually seems that once people latch onto a good idea they ignore the consequences that are associated with it. In education, it seems like the move to a business model is following this trend. In religion, I wonder if many people's attempts at cultural sequestering ignore some of the consequences that seem to go with it.

Darwinic Irony

I thought another quote from Bill Bryson was in order.

A life in a rural vicarage seemed to await him [Darwin] when from out of the blue there came a more tempting offer. Darwin was invited to sail on the naval survey ship HMS Beagle, essentially as dinner company for the campatin, Robert FitzRoy, who was very odd, chose Darwin in part because he like the shape of Darwin's nose. (It betokened depth of character, he believed). Darwin was not FitzRoy's first choice, but got the nod when FitzRoy's preferred companion dropped out. From a twenty-first century perspective the two men's most striking joint features was their extreme youthfulness. At the time of sialing, FitzRoy was only twenty-three, Darwin just twenty-two.

FitzRoy's formal assignment was to chart coastal water, but his hobby-passion realy-was to seek out evidence for a literal, biblical interpretation of creation. That Darwin was trained for the ministry was central to FitzRoy's decesion to have him aboard. That Darwin subsequently proved to be not only liberal of view but less than wholeheartedly devoted to Christian fundamentals became a source of lasting friction between them.

Now one shouldn’t go overboard thinking that Darwin’s thoughts on evolution are as clean, concise and obvious as they appear today, especially since the topic really wasn’t at the forefront of his mind during the Beagle trip. Nonetheless, I enjoyed the irony of the situation. I also wonder how much of that same irony occurs today?

In this situation, a relatively religious person proposed an eventually sound idea that many people took as a direct attack on God. Now I don’t think God changed during the eventual, and seemingly never ending, turmoil on the issue. And yet clearly the results of the idea were incompatible with many conceptions of God. Like the characterization of FitzRoy portrays, some people take any weakening from their pre-conceived conceptions of God as a personal attack on divinity. This even if their ideas, though well intentioned, be tenuously creditable.

The irony of a religious person fighting to diminish God against a fundamentalist’s fantastical beliefs of superlative though impossible God is interesting. Is this what Joseph Smith faced? Does this belie the friction between the mormon and evangelical communities? Is this what Jesus faced? Was he in the ironic position where he was perceived as blaspheming and denying a God that he was attempting to accurately portray?

Personally I get nervous when things I present may be perceived as limiting God. With so many conceptions tied together, what one person views as a simple limitation, another may view as a tangled attack on the essence of religion. When the rallying focus of one side is excitement, is anything less acceptable?

Want to help a student

In my grade 10 English class, we have been working on getting the students to write for a directed audience. To do this they have made their own blogs. Some of them have put quite a bit of effort into this. If you really want to make a student's day, drop by their sites and drop them a quick comment. They have been hard at it generating posts on various short stories to elicit comments.

http://lmoon.blogspot.com/

http://chanelsworld.blogspot.com/

http://www.wombatmaster.blogspot.com/

http://www.chocolaterandomness.blogspot.com/

I'll even let you know how excited they get about receiving a positive comment from someone they have never met, epsecially if it happens to be from someone more qualified to teach english than a physics major like myself.

Out of the closet

I finally decided to tidy things up and publish a site feed (thanks kzion) Part of this process means that each post will have an easier to find, linkable page. To make it easier to reference past posts, I am also going back to re-title old posts. This should enable linking to archives. This should clean up the feed titles, and let me put my recent post link back up on the side bar. Luckily I only post about once a week (usually Sunday afternoons), so this shouldn't be too hard.

Creating Autonomy

I thought I was about done discussing some consequences of a “slowed down” God, but I think I may mention one last point. If travel isn’t instantaneous, it is impossible to control things that are happening far away. In practical terms, what does this mean for divinity?



As I mentioned before, I think it sets up an effective limit for any, well lets call it “supervising”. The realm that an individual may have direct control over is limited. While check ups are of course possible, there must be a level at which time delays limit involvement. In this sense, there is most likely a threshold as it were for divinity. In other words, once a group is sufficiently separated from its head, it must become relatively autonomous. (I don’t think this autonomy in any way denies the existence of God, or the language one would use to describe his influence. It would just mean that many of the things we assume happen directly may be indirect, or due to forms that exist, or previous experiences that have been taught).

So what events would cause this autonomy to occur? According to my reasoning, the prime reason seems to be distance. Now what would cause this separation? Well if one looks at the size of the Galaxy, and the proportion of habitable planets, it would seem that habitable planets (or at least ones that have gotten screened for a closer look according to solstation.com) occur optimistically every 3ly in our neck of the woods or evenly distributing every 1 x 10^3 ly or so according to a simplistic Drakeapproximation (the difference is probably due to thegalactic habitable zone we are in, and different “n’s”). So separation caused by a need to be around a hospitable planet may have required an increase in autonomy. This seems to fit with the mormon belief that pre-mortal spirits , with Christ at the head were the active agents of creation. It may also help to make sense some of the confusion that usually exists with Christ’s role as creator and the old testament Jehovah.

Now of course, this is just speculation. However, it seems to me that for things to function properly, with the constraints of slow communication, each planet really needs its own supervising entity. Of course, with long time frames, it is unlikely that many earth like experiences will be going on simultaneously. However, I think the limiting principle will, to some extent, still apply.