Introduction to some philosophical principles

Dear (Friend),

Based on our philosophical discussion today, I wanted to share the ideas I mentioned to you in writing because writing allows for greater articulation and clarity. 

The philosophical study of reality is called metaphysics. The philosophical study of knowledge is called epistemology. One cannot have an epistemology—or systematic view of knowledge—without a metaphysics—or systematic view of what reality is like. Epistemology and metaphysics therefore cannot be separated. It is important to understand both areas of knowledge because they form the foundation for every other belief in our lives. Metaphysics and epistemology form a foundation for ethics—(how people should act). Ethics in turn forms a foundation for politics (how people should act with the context of society) and aesthetics (the study of art and what constitutes good or bad art). A complete philosophical system will integrate all of these branches of philosophy. 

Philosophical System

Aristotle said, "The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold.” Since metaphysics and epistemology are the foundation of any philosophical system, if one makes a metaphysical or epistemological mistake, it will be much more likely that he/she will also make mistakes in the areas of ethics, politics, and aesthetics. 

I want to tell you a bit about epistemology starting with premises and conclusions.

A premise is an proposition that supports a conclusion. A conclusion is a proposition that is derived from premises. To validate a conclusion we must identify and validate the premises. How do we validate a premise? By identifying the premises that support that premise. Here we can see a potential problem. Either,

  1. each premise will have its own premise going down a chain of premises forever (ad infinitum), or
  2. eventually we will find a stopping point—a foundation. That stopping point would be an irreducible premise that can stand alone. 

If option (1) is true, then knowledge would not be possible because we would not be able to justify our beliefs or know if they are true. If option (2) is true then knowledge is possible.

I believe that knowledge is possible because irreducible premises do exist. I am going to call these premises "Axioms". An axiom is a foundational premise that is self evident. A belief is self evident when in the process of arguing against a belief one must assume that belief while in the process of reject it. For example, if I try to argue against X, and while I am arguing against X, I am forced to assume X, then I will know that X is an axiom.

Knowledge and the ability to think rationally are dependent on the following axioms:

Axiom 1

Reality exists. This is a self-evident truth because if a person tries to deny it through argumentation, he/she must first appeal to reality in order to defend their position that there is no reality to appeal to. It is clearly a self-contradictory statement. Reality (or the world, or the universe) is the widest of all concepts. It includes all that is known and unknown.

Axiom 2
Consciousness exists. It is the awareness of reality. It could have been the case that a universe could have existed without consciousness, but we know that it exists because anyone that tries to deny consciousness through argumentation must appeal to reality to defend their position. And the very process of "appealing to reality" assumes that one is aware of reality. Axiom 1 and 2 combined show us that reality exists independently of our representations of it. 

Axioms cannot be proven. The concept of proof is not irreducible. It relies on axioms. For example, the concept of "proof" assumes that there is an existence or reality that exists independently of consciousness. The concept of proof is meaningless without the concept of reality/existence by which beliefs can be compared. If we compare a given belief to reality and the belief does not match reality, then that belief is false. A belief can be proven when it is shown to match reality. This is why the existence of reality itself cannot be proven, because the concept of proof requires a belief in reality. In other words trying to prove that reality exists would result in a circular argument. Even though Axioms cannot be proven, they can be validated. Validation is a larger concept than proof. Axioms are validated because they are self-evident.

If one rejects these axioms, one necessarily undermines their own ability to think. That is why the axioms are so important. If you come across any idea that tries to argue against these axioms, then you know it is false, because that idea must necessarily be self-refuting. The axioms are sentries that guard our mind against confusion and ignorance.

Regards,
Gavin


 

The Politics of Map-making?

Recently a designer wrote about how maps can "mold your understanding of the world around you." He used this clip from the show the West Wing to illustrate his point:

 

This view represents the confusion of those who believe in social constructivism and political correctness. Thomas Sowell addressed this issue in his book "The Vision of the Annointed". Here is a delightful passage:

"Perhaps nothing so captures the mind-set of the anointed as a tempest in a teapot created over a common map of the world used for centuries and called the Mercator Projection. This map has been objected to, not by professional map-makers or for scientific reasons, but by liberal-left organizations and individuals for ideological reasons...

"In our society," a critic claimed, "we unconsciously equate size with importance and even with power, and if the Third World coun-tries are misrepresented, they are likely to be valued less." The source of this revelation about other people's unconscious was of course not revealed. However, a maverick map-maker in Germany named Arno Peters has denounced the Mercator Projection as an example of "European arrogance," since it makes Europe look relatively larger than Third World countries and this has been taken to imply intentional efforts to foster Eurocentric and even imperialist attitudes. In the United States, the National Council of Churches has endorsed and published Peters' alternative map of the world and some United Nations agencies have likewise switched to the Peters map. Textbook publishers have been forced by the Texas Education Agency to include in their books sold in that state a disclaimer concerning the accuracy of the Mercator Projection and to include comparisons of other maps. The fact that most professional map-makers have been highly critical of the Peters alternative map carries no weight with the anointed. 

"The political implication of this map are true, whereas the political implications of the Mercator map are false," according to a spokesman for the National Council of Churches' publishing organization.' "The question for the church is not primarily one of scientific reliability," he said in defense of the Peters map. We see this map as being very central to establishment of a correct world view." In short, the integrity of yet another profession is to be violated for the sake of "political correctness." 

As with so many other issues involving the vision of the anointed. this ideological uproar turns on a failure to understand the nature of trade-offs and a willingness—or even eagerness—to read malign intentions into others. All maps necessarily distort the globe for the simple reason that there is no way to accurately represent a three-dimensional planet on a two-dimensional piece of paper. Something has to give. Some maps have the areas correct hut the directions wrong, while others have just the reverse, and still others have other problems. 

Choices of map projections, like all other choices, can only be made among the alternatives actually available--and an accurate map of the world has never been one of those alternatives. In map-making, as in other decision-making processes, there are no "solutions" but only trade-offs, which in this case permit one kind of accuracy to be achieved only at the expense of other kinds of accuracy. Finally, to complete the parallel with so many other kinds of misunderstandings by the anointed, maps do not exist for symbolic or ideological purposes but to meet some concrete practical need. One of the most enduring and most important needs met by maps is for finding places, particularly for navigation by ships and later by planes. Given this imperative, which was a matter of life and death to sailors for centuries. the Mercator Projection became a commonly used map because its directions were made accurate—at the expense of distorting the relative size of areas. Given that the users of these maps were far more concerned with arriving alive at their destinations than with comparing real estate, the Mercator Projection reigned supreme as a world map. Enter the anointed. For them, all this history and the scientific principles of map-making have been blithely ignored and yet another opportunity for moral preening created instead." 

 

Is Economics a Science?

Many people debate the question about whether economics is more like science or philosophy. In my own opinion, science and philosophy deal with different types of questions. Science deals with questions in which there is a systematic method of answering those questions. Philosophy on the other hand deals with questions in which there is not a systemic method for answering those questions. On this view, much of economics is a science because it provides a systematic way of answering many questions about the world. But, there are also parts of economics that are perhaps closer to being philosophy. 

Recently, a Harvard economics professor, Raj Chetty wrote the article, "Yes economics is a science"  in the New York Times. Chetty argues that economics is a science even though many economists disagree with each other. Chetty writes, 

It is true that the answers to many “big picture” macroeconomic questions — like the causes of recessions or the determinants of growth — remain elusive. But in this respect, the challenges faced by economists are no different from those encountered in medicine and public health. Health researchers have worked for more than a century to understand the “big picture” questions of how diet and lifestyle affect health and aging, yet they still do not have a full scientific understanding of these connections. Some studies tell us to consume more coffee, wine and chocolate; others recommend the opposite. But few people would argue that medicine should not be approached as a science or that doctors should not make decisions based on the best available evidence.
Chetty gave several examples of how economics provides a scientific picture of reality. But he also jumped to policy recommendations as if the economic studies naturally lead to those policy recommendations. When Chetty was explaining the scientific observations from economics, I was in agreement with him, but when Chetty jumped to making policy suggestions, I became more skeptical. The economics was science, but the policy suggestions based on the economics was more like philosophy.
 
As I was thinking about this article and randomly surfing the internet, I found this excellent criticism of Chetty's NY Times article by the "Anonymous Commentator".
 
The Anonymous Commentator basically agreed that economics is a science and agreed with the scientific conclusions of the economic studies referenced in Chetty's article. But he showed how one can easily arrive at opposite policy recommendations from Chetty. According to the Anonymous Commentator,
Economics certainly can be seen as a science when it comes to making observations about the world, but when it comes to recommending certain policies, economics is only as scientific as the biases of the economists allow it to be.

One who makes policy recommendations based on economic conclusions are often— though not always—engaging in philosophy. Philosophy is not inferior to science. It just focuses on different questions—questions like "What is the good society?" or "How should we conduct ourselves in society?" for example. We need to make more room for honest debate about those questions even though there may be less room for debating the facts of economics.


 

True Individualism vs. False Individualism

Every fourth friday, I meet with a philosophy group. In our August philosophy discussion, we discussed the essay Individualism: True and False by the social theorist and economist Friedrich Hayek. According to Hayek, there are two opposing ideas about how to understand individuals and the society in which they live.  Hayek calls these ideas true individualism and false individualism. These ideas permeate all social and political thought. They apply to beliefs about reason and knowledge, economics, justice, equality, power, tradition, marriage and family, and government. In this post, I will briefly introduce the concepts of true and false individualism and discuss how they relate to ideas about reason and knowledge.

True Individualism and False individualism
True individualism is a social theory that says that individuals cannot be properly understood without understanding the social processes that surround him. As people make individual decisions they contribute to a social order that is not the result of human design. According to Hayek, “if left free, men will often achieve more than individual human reason could design or foresee.” (individualism: True and False pg 11) Hayek associates true individualism with Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocqueville, Lord Acton, and John Locke.

False individualism on the other hand asserts that individuals are best understood as existing independently of social processes. And, it seeks to understand society as existing independently of the individuals that compose that society. False individualism assumes that reason "is always fully and equally available to all humans and that everything which man achieves is the direct result of, and therefore subject to, the control of individual reason.” False individualism seeks to free individuals from social constraints in order to promote liberated self-expression. This view has been expressed by John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, René Descartes, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and, William Godwin.

Reason and Knowledge
According to true individualism, any individual's own knowledge alone is grossly inadequate for social decision making. Knowledge comes primarily from experience which is “transmitted socially in largely inarticulate forms from prices which indicate costs, scarcities, and preferences, to traditions which evolve from the day to day experiences of millions in each generation, winnowing out in Darwinian competition what works from what does not work.” (Conflict of Visions pg 36)

In another work, Hayek wrote that, “man has certainly more often learnt to do the right thing without comprehending why it was the right thing, and he still is better served by custom than understanding.” There is thus, “more ‘intelligence’ incorporated in rules of conduct than in man’s thoughts about his surroundings.” (Law, Legislation, and Liberty pg 157)

In his essay on individualism Hayek argues that since man’s reason is inadequate to intelligently design society, individuals are justified in following, and ought to follow, social conventions that have evolved over time.

...the individual, in participating in the social processes, must be ready and willing to adjust himself to changes and to submit to conventions which are not the result of intelligent design, whose justification in the particular instance may not be recognizable, and which to him will often appear unintelligible and irrational.

Thus according to true individualism, knowledge comes from experience, is  systemic and dispersed in the many, and is expressed through social norms and customs.

False individualism rejects these ideas in favor of what Hayek calls “Rationalism” which accepts only what can “justify” itself to “reason”. One proponent of rationalism—the philosopher William Godwin—expressed this view when he said that “Reason is the proper instrument, and the sufficient instrument for regulating the actions of mankind.” Traditions and social norms are looked upon with skepticism and disdain unless they are validated via specifically articulated rationality. This is because knowledge is viewed as, “conscious, explicit knowledge of individuals, the knowledge which enables us to state that this or that is so-and-so.”

Implicit in Hayek’s view of rationalism is that it can lead to both socialism and forms of libertarianism such as anarchism. Rationalism can lead to socialism because according to Godwin, “persons with narrow views and observation,” readily accept whatever happens to prevail in their society. (Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, Vol II, pg 206) It is only the “cultivated minds” who can deliberately see past the social norms and traditions of the masses and deliberately design a society that will benefit all. Rationalism thus sees knowledge and reason as concentrated in the few who see themselves as surrogate decision-makers on behalf of the masses. This is why Hayek believes that rationalism often leads “directly to socialism” which assumes that society can only improve if it is deliberately designed by the wisest most cultivated minds. Taken to another extreme, rationalism can also lead to forms of libertarianism such as anarchism which seeks to reduce all social interactions to deliberate contract making between individuals as if they could deliberately design their lives from scratch apart from society or government.

According to Thomas Sowell who wrote extensively about Hayek, “Rationalism at the individual level is a plea for more personal autonomy from cultural norms, at the social level it is often a claim—or arrogation—of power to stifle the autonomy of others,” on the basis of assumed superior wisdom and articulated rationality. (Knowledge and Decisions pg 103)

Summary
Another way to understand true and false individualism with respect to knowledge and reason is to contrast how each side answers the questions, “what is the locus of discretion?” and, “what is the mode of discretion?” 

Individualism-Graphics.gif

According to true individualism, individuals should be left free to make their own decisions within a framework of systemic rationality. By systemic rationality, I am referring to the experience of the many as expressed in social norms, customs, traditions, and even price signals within an economy. According to false individualism, individuals should be free from the constraints of social norms and traditions. They can only be free if they are liberated by experts who exempt themselves from social norms and make social decisions on behalf of “society”. False individualism thus assumes that man can comprehend society enough to design it.


  1. Friedrich Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order 
  2. Thomas Sowell, Conflict of Visions
  3. Friedrich Hayek, Law, Legislation, and Liberty
  4. William Godwin, Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, Vol II
  5. Thomas Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions

 

Marriage and Language

Abstract:
Words are transportation devices that transport thoughts between people. Just because someone calls themselves married, it doesn’t mean that they are married. The traditional definition of marriage and the revisionist definition of marriage are mutually exclusive. Changing the words we use changes the culture we live in.

Who decides what words mean—Individuals, or society?

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

The above exchange between Humpty Dumpty and Alice from Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass reveals one view of language. It is a view of language that says that individuals get to choose what their words mean. But is Humpty Dumpty correct?

Words are the fundamental units of language. Words are transportation devices that transport thoughts between people.  When we understand a word or a sentence, we understand the intention behind the utterance.  A word is created when there is social agreement that some noise counts as having some sort of content. We can transmit ideas in many different ways. For example, in America making the shape of a “V” with one’s fingers counts as conveying the content “peace.” 

Words Transport Ideas

Words Transport Ideas

Words are like money in that both are social concepts. The concept of money would not make sense to someone who is alone on an island. We can’t choose by ourselves how much a certain piece of gold is worth or how much a dollar bill is worth if we want to participate in society. Similarly, we can't choose what our words mean if we want to participate in society. Without the social recognition of the meaning of a particular word, the word cannot perform the function of transporting thoughts between people. Language is not a property of individuals; language is a property of society. In other words, Humpty Dumpty was mistaken. 

When people use the word marriage, what is the idea they are trying to transmit?
 
Historically, almost every culture in the world and all advanced civilizations have created/believed in an idea. That idea involves placing a status on men and women in a specific type of relationship that commits them to maintain a permanent union. No other type of relationship can promote an environment where children are raised with their biological parents. Also, no other type of relationship can contribute to the type of culture that is created when men and women commit to overcoming their gender differences to maintain a permanent union. This concept, like money, is a social concept because it comes with social norms and expectations.

In english, people have used the word “marriage” to transmit the above concept to others. For instance, when I use the word "marriage," the above concept is roughly what I think is being communicated. Similarly, 41 U.S. states affirm that the word "marriage" is associated with the above concept. As far as I know, there is no better word to transport this concept to others. But, some people want to use the word marriage to convey a different concept completely. That other concept goes something like this: “an emotional relationship between any consenting adults.” One reason why some people want to change what is meant by marriage is that they think that it will somehow give same-sex relationships social validation.

I will call the first view of marriage "traditional marriage." I will call the second view the "revisionist definition of marriage." These two views of marriage use the same word but have different meanings and different social norms and expectations. I have tried to summarize these differences in the following table:

Traditional DefinitionRevisionist Definition
What is it?Marriage is a permanent comprehensive union between a man and a womanMarriage is essentially an emotional union between any consenting adults (Love makes a marriage)
Why is it defined that way?

1. To ensure that children are raised as much as possible by their biological parents

2. To create an environment that allows men and women live up to the ideals of marriage that are based on male/female complementarity

To make it appear that one's relationship is validated by society
What obligations are created for the relationship?To maintain permanence and stability; To put social functions above personal wants and desires Whatever obligations the private couple/group wants; It is primarily private and not social
What obligations are created for society?

To maintain social norms that encourage husbands and wives to stay together and work out their differences that come from sexual complementarity

Not applicable

Does calling it a marriage make it a marriage?
Just because people call their relationship marriage, it does not mean that they have a marriage. The principle being illustrated here is that changing the way we use words does not change the concepts behind the words. Abraham Lincoln illustrated this point when he said the following:

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? 
Answer: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
If people who are not married want to call their relationship “marriage,” then it is no different from them wanting to call it “potato.” They could do it, but it would not change the underlying reality of the relationship that they have. 

Whats the big deal?
Some revisionists claim that they don’t want to redefine marriage. They say, “  You can still have your marriage; we don’t want to change it. We only want to make it more inclusive to accommodate same-sex relationships." But you can't make one concept inclusive of another when the two concepts are mutually exclusive. One way that the traditional view of marriage and the revisionist view of marriage are mutually exclusive is that the traditional view puts social function above private affair, while the revisionist view flips this upside down and puts private affair above social function. (I have written about this topic  here.) Making marriage more inclusive in this way does not simply add to the concept referred to by the word “marriage.” It replaces the concept completely. And, when you replace the concept you also replace the social norms and expectations that come with the concept.

In other words, when word change, culture can change with it.

If we want to create social institutions that perform social functions, then we need to have social agreement on what is meant by the words we use. Society could not exist without the ability to communicate our intentions through language. People could use whatever words they want, but when they do they essentially say, “I don’t want to participate in society.” In a free society people can make such as decision.

If it stopped there, then that would be fine, but revisionists want it both ways. They want the word marriage to mean what they want it to mean (the Humpty Dumpty method) and they want to use the government to force everyone to accept their redefinition of marriage. How is this possible? It is possible because marriage is not only a social institution, but also a legal institution. In America these two concepts are intimately linked. Changing one affects the other. If revisionists tried to change the social institution of marriage directly, they would fail. But when revisionists use government power to change the legal institution of marriage, they indirectly change the social institution as well.

This abuse of government power is alarming. Terry Warner, author of the book The Bonds that Make Us Free, has expressed his concern about this issue in the following way:

But why, some may ask, must we let the form of a legal institution have so much influence? Can’t we traditionalists ignore it and just go on living by our own rules? The answer to the question begins with a focus on what will happen to our language if the legal institution is changed. If we give the name marriage to the union of any two people, we will change the very meaning of that word. It will mean a different order of living, a way of life that any two people can enter into. In legal documents and public schools and the media, the word marriage will be used to refer to this different, far more casual institution. Our children will look at us quizzically when we speak of the challenges and joys of traditional marriage. What words will we use to tell them what we have learned from our experience? How will we teach them of the possibilities attainable only in man-woman marriage?  

Another concerned voice is the columnist Maggie Gallagher who shares Warner's concern. In 2003, she wrote the following inThe Weekly Standard:

What some dismiss as protecting “merely” the word marriage is actually 90 percent of the loaf. If a married couple no longer consists of a husband and wife, we lose the shared meaning of the word; we lose the ability to speak the idea in public and be understood... The opponents of marriage understand what many of its friends do not: Capturing the word is the key to deconstructing the institution. 
If the word marriage includes same-sex couples, we proponents of the marriage culture will be silenced in the public square because we will no longer have a word for the idea of marriage as we and our forebears have always understood it... 

Conclusion
 
If revisionists succeed in co-opting the word marriage for their purposes, then it will erode the social norms that come with the concept behind the word marriage. If that happens then many will still try to preserve marriage by distinguishing between what marriage really is and the redefinition of marriage. For instance, I personally will try to teach my children and my community that marriage is a relationship between a husband and wife and I will try to explain the benefits of this type of relationship that other relationships simply don't have. But without the social understanding of these concepts it will make very difficult for these ideas to be transmitted to future generations. 

In sum, words matter because they allow us to transport concepts from one mind into another mind. Words are not the same thing as the concepts behind them. The concept behind the word "marriage" is a relationship between a man and a women. The word "marriage" not only conveys meaning about a certain type of relationship, but it also conveys social norms and expectations that are associated with that relationship. if revisionists succeed in changing our language to make marriage refer to same-sex couples, they will have succeeded in changing our culture and way of life.

 

Peace Out

Peace Out

Marriage—A Status Function

The purpose of this post is to answer the questions "What is Marriage?" and "Why should we recognize it socially?"

Abstract:
The status of marriage was created to perform specific functions. The primary function of the status of marriage is to cause parents to stay together for the sake of the biological children that they have. The status of marriage does this by creating desire-independent reasons to maintain permanent union. The status of marriage understood in this way is only intelligible when applied to opposite-sex couples.

 

Picture-of-Marriage.png

What is marriage? 
 
In order to answer this question, I want to make it clear what type of thing marriage is. Those who read my blog regularly are aware that I am interested the philosophy of society. The application of the philosophy of society makes it very clear what marriage is and why it exists. Before I talk about marriage, I want to be very clear and give a very brief introduction to the philosophy of society. (I recommend reading my more thorough introduction here)

The philosophy of society begins with a distinction between two types of facts about reality. There are facts that only exist in a social context that depend on our beliefs and attitudes for their existence. I will call these observer-relative facts. On the other hand, there are facts that exist independently of the beliefs and attitudes of conscious beings. I will call these observer-independent facts. The existence of gravity or consciousness itself are observer-independent facts. The existence of things like money, touchdowns, and elections are observer-relative facts. Marriage is an observer-relative fact.

The concept of “function” is always an observer-relative notion. Functions do not exist independently of conscious beings. Functions are assigned relative to our goals and purposes. We can assign functions to objects, places, events, or persons. For instance, we can assign the function of “knife” to something that can cut. We can also assign function of money to a piece of paper or a nugget of gold. The difference between a knife and a $5 bill is that the shape or physical structure of the knife is sufficient to afford the function that we assign to it. The piece of paper or gold on the other hand is not sufficient to cause it to be money. It is only money because we collectively recognize that it has a certain status. In other words, we can collectively impose functions on objects where the objects cannot perform the function solely in virtue of their physical structure. These types of functions are called status functions.

Marriage is a status function 
Marriage is not a term that describes something that happens naturally. Marriage is a status that is collectively assigned to individuals and relationships with certain qualifications in order to perform a specific function. Given this understanding of marriage, it becomes clear what questions we need to ask next:

(1) “What is the function that we want the status of marriage to perform?” (2) “What does the social recognition of marriage give us that we don’t already have?” Put another way. “Why do we need the status of marriage at all?”

These questions are intimately linked. Let me start by addressing the last question first. In order to answer (2) first we need to understand a bit more about status functions in general. Status functions are always associated with power. For the purpose of this post, I will simply define power as the ability to get somebody to do something. This power comes in the form of rights, permissions, authorizations, certifications, and entitlements as well as obligations, duties, and requirements. These 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 of the president of the United States, then I am authorized to command the military and I am required to uphold the constitution. Status functions are always associated with powers that lock into human rationality by creating “desire-independent reasons for action”.

So what does marriage give us that we don’t already have?
The status function of marriage gives us desire-independent reasons for action such as obligations and duties. What are these obligations and duties? Let’s go back to question (1).

In order to answer question (1), we need to identify some observer-independent facts about reality. These facts are observer-independent because they exist regardless of what anyone thinks or believes.

  1. Human beings reproduce sexually.
  2. The differences between men and women are far deeper than just genitalia
  3. Only a man and a woman can produce offspring.
  4. Without someone to take care of them, Human offspring would die shortly after birth.
  5. Human beings are born with innate attitudes and tendencies such as the following: A.) Human beings have a strong desire to have sex. B.) Men on average desire to have children less than women. C.) Children are born with an innate longing to be raised by their biological parents D.) Some of these innate attitudes and tendencies conflict such as love for a newborn children on the one hand and selfishness on the other hand. From a biological point of view, love for newborn children promotes the survival of our species, while selfishness can promote the survival of individuals.
  6. For evolutionary reasons biological parents will on average be the most invested in the nurture and well being of their child. (Kin altruism)
  7. Because of these evolutionary reasons, sociological research shows that children that are raised without both of their biological parents are 2 – 3 times more likely on average to experience serious negative outcomes such as problems with the law, mental health problems, substance abuse, and many other problems. (Sources herehere, and here)

Given these observer-independent facts, it is now possible to address questions (1) and (2) above. We can also see the reasons for creating the observer-relative institution of marriage. The function of marriage is to impose obligations (and to bestow social inducements) for the purpose of causing couples to maintain permanent relationships for the sake of children. Marriage is intended to promote innate attitudes and tendencies that are beneficial in raising children and minimize the selfish desires that could cause biological parents to abandon their children.

If children popped into existence without sexual reproduction and were fully independent, it would make no sense to have the concept of marriage as explained. Throughout history, marriage has had variability (patriarchal, polygynous, monogamous, etc.) but the persistent principle that has been widely protected and cherished by all cultures is the importance of the people who give life to an infant also being, as nearly as possible, the ones who care for it. (Source)

Summary so far 
 
Let me sum up what I have argued so far. Marriage is an observer-relative fact. It is a status function. As such it creates desire-independent reasons for action such as the obligations to commit to a permanent and exclusive union. The purpose of these obligations is to create an environment such that if the couple has children, those children will be raised by their biological parents. This is important because human beings are physically and psychologically constituted (due to evolutionary forces) such that biological parents are the most optimal arrangement for the raising of children. The concept of marriage puts social function before individual happiness.

Given these reasons, it becomes quite clear why the concept of marriage only makes sense when applied to relationships made up of one man and one woman. Only a man and a woman can qualify for the status of marriage, because only a man and a woman can fulfill the function of marriage.

Another way to make my point is to imagine that we were building a society from scratch. Given the observer-independent facts stated above (facts 1 through 7), we can see the need to influence people to stay together for the sake of the children that they have. We could create a new status function—lets call it “Warriage”. Along with this status would come the obligation and societal expectation to stay together. If people collectively recognize warriage, then more children will be raised by parents who gave birth to them and we would minimize problems with the law, mental health problems, and substance abuse. Warriage would be praised as a great invention because of all the social goods that it provides. Given the function that warriage is trying to perform, warriage could only be intelligible as applied to one man and one woman who are committed to sustaining a permanent union. Warriage is supposed to be marriage. This thought experiment shows that even if marriage never existed, we would still have strong reasons to create it and maintain it.

But, now many people have forgotten what marriage is and the function that it is supposed to perform. America currently has a weak marriage culture. Divorce is too common and over 40% of children are born out of wedlock. We need to work to strengthen our marriage culture. Understanding the definition and social function of marriage is a first step toward strengthening marriage.

When many people talk about marriage nowadays they mean something wholly different than the concept explained above. When pressed to give a definition for marriage, many people say something like the following, “Marriage is an emotional union between any consenting adults.” You often hear this sentiment expressed in the buzz phrase, "Love makes a marriage". This definition of marriage is the complete opposite of the definition that I gave above. How is it opposite? It is opposite because traditional marriage puts social function above individual happiness. The redefinition of marriage flips the function upside down. It puts individual happiness above social function. (To use philosophical jargon, the redefinition of marriage entails that desire-dependent reasons for action have primacy over desire-dependent reasons for action.) If marriage is simply an emotional union between any two couples, then there is no need for the status function of marriage at all. That would exist without the need for a special status.

Conclusion 
Given that marriage is a status function, we have to ask what is the purpose that the status of marriage is trying to perform. Historically, the purpose of marriage has been to ensure that children are raised by their biological parents. Even if marriage construed as such never existed in the past, we would still have very strong reasons to create and maintain it. Given the function that marriage is trying to perform, it simply does not apply to relationships between people of the same sex. 

I have argued for traditional marriage without using any religious arguments. It is possible that I may have reasoned incorrectly, or I may have reasoned from incorrect assumptions. I have tried really hard to make my assumptions and reasoning clear for anyone to examine and scrutinize. I do not hate anyone and I have no desire to wrongfully discriminate against anyone. Those who know me personally can judge my sincerity for themselves, but please do not hate me or call me names like "homophobe" or "bigot". I simply believe that if one understands marriage, then he/she will recognize that marriage benefits society and hurts no one.

 

 

What does holiness mean?

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

 

Human Rights

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. 

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 recognition that they have 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.

Status functions are always associated with social power. This power is simply the ability to get people to behave in a certain way. There are positive social powers such as rights, permissions, authorizations, certifications, and entitlements. There are also negative powers such as obligations, duties, and requirements. These 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 obligated 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 social 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 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 power associated with this constitutive rule is that any organism that satisfies the conditions of the Y term has certain 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 & 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 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 government (G) does not fulfill their Obligation (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 
 
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

  1. 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.
  2. Because human beings have a recognized status function, they have social powers that include rights to perform certain actions.
  3. Analyzing human rights in this way makes it very clear that human rights imply human obligations.
  4. There are two types rights—positive and negative.
  5. Human rights exist independently of laws created within any institution and apply universally.

God, Language, and Reality

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

Philosophy, Science, and Scientism

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. 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 mistaken 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. Because of this conception of science, everyone has an incentive to call what they believe "science" in order to give the impression of unquestionable authority.

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 in the following way: 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 the Philosopher John 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 why 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 appears right and philosophy is always appears 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 philosophical methods of thinking are often co-opted by other disciplines creating the illusion that philosophy is never making progress. 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 clear 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. A few decades ago, John Searle asked a famous neurobiologist at UCSF why neuroscientists didn't get to work on consciousness and he said, "Look, in my discipline it's okay to be interested in consciousness, but get tenure first." 

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 conceptual error. 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 has the funding to search for the illusive NCC (neural correlates of consciousness) in large part thanks to philosophers who clarified the conceptual 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 frankly absurd once one understands the 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 when he says things like "philosophy is dead" or when he advocates philosophical approaches to science such as "model-dependent realism". Adherents of scientism just can't resist making the same sorts of philosophical claims that they argue against. 

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, 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?", "What is society and what are its functions?", "Where do human rights come from?", and "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 mistaken 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. According to Albert Einstein,

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.

 

Sicko and the liberal narrative

220px-Sickoposter

220px-Sickoposter

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.

Why I believe in God

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 reasonsThere 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.

Theism, Atheism, and Mormonism

Mindy
Mindy

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 and gave up trying to answer. She was 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. It seems 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. "Who or what is the uncaused causer?" is the same question as "Where do all explanations end?" Atheism gives one answer, Traditional theism gives another. Mormonism seems to give an answer that is a hybrid of both atheism and traditional theism.

Volitional vs. Non-volitional explanations
There are two ways to answer the question, "Where do explanations end?" Traditional theists such as Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that all explanations end in a volitional explanation. I am using the word "volition" to refer to that which is caused by some being or agent.

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.

For 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 will answer that nature is just that way and that is where explanations end. A traditional theist would answer that God created the laws that way and that is where explanations end.

Where do explanations end for Mormon theology?
According to Mormon theology, some explanations end in non-volitional causes and some explanations end in volitional causes. How can this be? Mormon theology agrees with both Aristotle and Plato who argued that the world always existed and that God organized the world out of pre-existing unorganized matter. That pre-existing matter was not created out of nothing. It has no cause. It has always existed and therefore has no explanation. On this point, Mormon theology agrees with the belief of most atheists.

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:

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)

According to the LDS scholar Sterling McMurrin who wrote Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion:

“It is a basic article of Mormon theology that God is related to a world environment for the being of which he is not the ultimate ground and by which he therefore is in some sense conditioned. This means that God is a being among beings rather than being as such or the ground of being, and that he is therefore finite rather than absolute.” (Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion)

Orson Pratt who was an early Mormon church leader wrote:

“God [in LDS thought] is described in non-absolutistic terms as a being who is conditioned by and related to the world of which he is a part and which, because it is not ultimately his creation, is not absolutely under his dominion … God’s environment is the physical universe, the minds and selves which exist but are not identified with him, the principles under which reality is structured, and perhaps even the value absolutes which govern the divine will,”

“There are some things that cannot be performed, although we had the power of working great and mighty miracles; indeed, the great God Himself who has power to control the heavens over our heads, and the earth upon which we stand has NOT the power to do that which would be naturally impossible, or in opposition to the great, necessary, and fundamental truths of nature, which are eternally unalterable, and cannot be otherwise than they are,” (JD 3:300).

There are many other quotes that confirm the Mormon belief that these explanations do not end in God, but instead end in the elements and principles of nature. No volitional being did or could have created them.

However, according to most accounts of Mormon theology, volitional beings (spirits or intelligences) also were not created. All volitional beings are coeternal with the elements that have always existed. According to Joseph Smith:

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)

If volitional beings are also uncreated, then their actions cannot themselves be reduced to non-volitional causes. Volition is simply part of uncreated nature. Therefore, some explanations end in the choices of volitional beings. For example, when we ask why a painting of the sky is blue, it is not satisfactory to appeal to the laws of  quantum electrodynamics. Any explanation for why a painting is blue must account for the intentions of the painter who organized the paints on the canvas. The painting is blue because of the laws of nature AND because of the intentions of the painter. In Mormon theology, the answer to the question "where did matter come from?" ends in a non-volitional explanation. And, the answer to the question "why was matter organized in a certain way" can end in a volitional explanation. Concerning the latter question, God organized the pre-existing matter that we experience on this earth to fulfill His eternal purposes. On this point, Mormon theology sides more with theism than atheism.

Conclusion
Traditional 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 is a hybrid belief system that asserts that some explanations end in God and some do not. Because of these beliefs, members of the Mormon church are in a good position to resolve many contentions between atheism and traditional theism.

Stephen Hawking, Gravity, and God

When people claim there is a conflict between science and religion, they are often referring to some alleged conflict between the theory of evolution and a belief in a designer God. 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. His arguments makes several philosophical mistakes that ought be addressed.

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. 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.

Hawking then 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 also is logically incoherent. If any scientific theory makes such as obvious error, then that theory ought to be revised or abandoned. 

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 is 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 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)

Scientists like Dawkins and Hawking hurt scientific progress when they mingle their own philosophical assumptions with science. Their philosophical pronouncements cause confusion because it gives lay people the false impression that they must choose between God or science when the clash really exists between the scientist's philosophical assumptions and God.

 

Rebutting an atheist argument against theism

The purpose of this post is to give a rebuttal to one atheist argument against theism. This argument was suggested by Richard Dawkins in the book The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design and in the book The God Delusion. The argument was also repeated by my friend Bennion in the comments of my previous post. The argument goes something like this: Any attempt to explain the astonishing variety of life by a hypothesis involving design is misguided because any being able to create life would itself have to be just as complex. In other words, one cannot explain life by invoking a designer or creator, because that does not explain the life of the creator. In The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins puts it this way:

Organized complexity is the thing that we are having difficulty in explaining. Once we are allowed simply to postulate organized complexity, if only the organized complexity of the DNA/protein replicating machine, it is relatively easy to invoke it as a generator of yet more organized complexity…. But of course any God capable of intelligently designing something as complex as the DNA/protein machine must have been at least as complex and organized as that machine itself… To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer.

Bennion echoed a similar point:

If you posit, for example, that life was created by God, that doesn’t solve the problem at all because you haven’t explained how God came to exist, and that problem is far bigger than how life came to exist, because God is so much more complicated than a simple chain of self-replicating chemicals.

I will offer rebuttals for this argument from the perspectives of traditional Christianity and LDS theology (Mormonism).

Point 1
Dawkins' argument makes the mistake of trying to discredit one explanation for a particular manifestation of life by saying that it doesn't give an ultimate explanation of life in general. Alvin Plantinga illustrates this point with the following thought experiment.

Suppose we land on an alien planet orbiting a distant star and discover some machine-like objects that look and work just like a 1941 Allis Chalmers tractor; our leader says “there must be intelligent beings on this planet—look at those tractors.” A sophomore philosophy student on the expedition objects: “Hey, hold on a minute! You have explained nothing at all! Any intelligent life that designed those tractors would have to be at least as complex as they are!” No doubt we’d tell him a little learning is a dangerous thing and advise him to take the next rocket ship home and enroll in another philosophy course or two.

The point is that the leader was not trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity. He was only trying to explain one particular manifestation of it—the tractors. In this context it is perfectly reasonable to explain one manifestation of organized complexity with another. Similarly theists are not trying to give an ultimate explanation for all organized complexity (including God) when they invoke God as an explanation for organized complexity.

Point 2
 
Well, what about that ultimate explanation? Wouldn't Dawkins' argument apply to a theist's ultimate explanation of God? What is the explanation for God?

There are certain questions that are simply incoherent to ask. For instance the question, "What is the proof for rationality?" This question is incoherent because any argument for rationality must already presupposes rationality. One cannot say that science proves that rationality is valid because science already uses rationality to assimilate evidence and come to conclusions. Also, the question, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" is incoherent because all explanations already presuppose that something exists. All explanations end in existence. There just can't be any explanation for it. It just is.

Similarly, the question "What explains an eternal being?" is an incoherent question. If God exists then there couldn't be any ultimate explanation for God because God is an eternal being. Atheists likewise don't have any explanation for elementary particles or the laws of nature. They must simply take it for granted that all explanations eventually bottom out in brute facts. The God hypothesis does not explain the existence of God, and naturalistic physicalism does not explain the laws of physics.

Point 3
 
Dawkins' argument is circular because it assumes what it is trying to prove. Dawkins simply starts with the assumption that nature is the way he thinks it is, then tries to show that nature is the way he thinks it is. He assumes that nature is such that any being that exists would have to be created according to the physical laws as he sees them. Then he uses that assumption to show that any explanation for life cannot invoke God since God would have had to be created according to the physical laws as Dawkins sees them.

Dawkins' argument does not apply to theists because he arbitrarily assumes that God is created. Therefore, theists do not believe in the God that Dawkins is calling into question. His argument does not apply.

Conclusion
 
In this blog post, I have attempted to rebut one of Dawkins' primary arguments against God. I have argued that it confuses an explanation for a particular manifestation for life with an explanation for an ultimate explanation of all life (including God). I argued that Dawkins' argument is trying to address a question that is not coherent. And I have argued that Dawkins' argument is circular.

Richard Dawkins' laments the fact that roughly 40% of Americans do not believe in evolution. I share this concern since it seems to me that the science behind evolution is quite solid and has been useful making medical advances and understanding the history of our beautiful planet. When I personally study about evolution and the variety of life, I feel a sense of awe at the beauty and wonder of nature. Sometimes, I feel closer to God when I study the theory of evolution. So I am concerned that many American's are missing out on this understanding and experience.

Dawkins is a wonderful biologist. I have read his book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution several times. I own the audiobook and the hardcover. I highly recommend it. Dawkins' descriptions of orchids, bats, moths, and fish are just a delight to read.

While Dawkins is a very good biologist, he is a poor philosopher. Dawkins pretends that his arguments are scientific when they are really philosophical. The subtitle of Dawkins book, The Blind Watchmaker says that the purpose of his book is to show how evolution reveals a universe without design. Dawkins inevitably fails because the theory of evolution has nothing to say about the existence of God or a designer.

I believe that one of the reasons why many people don't believe in evolution is that they are constantly told by the "experts" like Dawkins that evolution shows that God doesn't exist. I think these pronouncements by the atheists like Dawkins are harmful for 3 reasons. (1) They confuse philosophy and science, (2) they cause many well-meaning religious people to close off to scientific claims about evolution, and (3) they cause many well-meaning people to close off to atheists in general—many of whom are quite reasonable and have important things to say. If more theists understood that evolution does not threaten their faith, but can possibly enhance their faith, then more people would embrace the theory of evolution.

Atheism and Evolution

I recently wrote about whether or not the theory of evolution was compatible with Christianity. I argued rather briefly that the theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity. In this post I will try to address the question: Could the theory of evolution be incompatible with atheism?

The philosopher Alvin Plantinga has a very interesting response to this question. He does not argue that evolution is incompatible with every form of atheism. But, he does argue that the theory of evolution is incompatible with naturalism which is a very popular belief of most atheists. When I first heard this argument I didn't agree with it, but as I read it more carefully and as I studied some of objections to it from other philosophers, I became convinced that it is a really good argument. Before one can understand this argument they need a few conceptual tools.

Conditional Probability
The first tool is the idea of conditional probability. Conditional probability tries to show the probability of something happening, given something else. For instance, the probability that Brigham is a Mormon given that he lives in Utah is high. On the other hand, the probability that Mohammed is a Mormon given that he lives in Kuwait is low.

Defeaters for belief
The second conceptual tool is the idea of a defeater. A defeater is a reason for not believing something else. So for example, if I see a spider on the wall of my grandma's house, then I will form the belief that there is a spider on the wall. But if my grandma then says that it is just a halloween decoration, then I have a defeater for my belief that there is a spider on the wall.

There can also be defeaters for other defeaters—defeater defeaters. So for example, if I believed that my grandma might be a bit senile and that it is the month of March, then I have a defeater for the belief that the spider is a halloween decoration. This process could continue with defeater defeater defeaters and so forth.

Definition of naturalism
 
Naturalism is the view that that there is no God, nor is there anything like God. A person can be an atheist without being a full blown naturalist. Naturalism implies materialism. According to a materialistic view of the human mind, both behavior and beliefs are caused by neural firings in the brain. A materialist believes that consciousness is really just the neuronal firings of the brain.

So with these conceptual tools, one can understand Plantinga's argument.

Premise 1
Beliefs are part of our cognitive faculties along with memory, perception, and rationality. Beliefs are true if they correspond to reality. Beliefs are reliable when they are true most of the time. Perhaps we can say that beliefs have to be true at least 3/4ths of the time to be considered reliable. Now we can use the conditional probability tool. What is the probability that our beliefs would be reliable given evolution and naturalism?

The theory of evolution claims that all species descended from a common ancestor through a processes of descent with modification via natural selection. Natural selection is the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.

According to a naturalistic conception of evolution, the human brain would have evolved to produce certain survival-enhancing behaviors. If evolution and naturalism were true, then it doesn't matter if beliefs are true or false. All that matters is the behavior. If that is true, then the probability that our beliefs are reliable is at best 50/50. Beliefs could be true, they could be false, it really wouldn't matter given naturalism and evolution. Therefore, the probability that our beliefs are reliable given evolution and naturalism is low.

A year before his death, Charles Darwin expressed this same concern. He wrote:

“With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”

A rather influential atheist philosopher Patricia Churchland has echoed a similar point:

Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F’s: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive…. . Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism’s way of life and enhances the organism’s chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost.

In summary, the first premise of Plantinga's argument is that the probability of our beliefs being reliable given evolution and naturalism is low. Plantinga summarizes this premise as such: P(R | N&E) is low where "P()" is probability, "R" is the proposition that our cognitive faculties are reliable, and "N&E" refers naturalism and evolution.

The-probability-of-the-reliability-of-our-beliefs

The-probability-of-the-reliability-of-our-beliefs

Premise 2
 
If one believes premise 1 and she is a naturalist, then she has a defeater for the belief that her beliefs are reliable. Remember that a defeater is a reason not to believe something. That means that a naturalist who also believes in evolution has a reason for believing that her cognitive faculties are not reliable.

Premise 3
 
If one has a defeater for the belief that beliefs are reliable, then she also has a defeater for any other belief she thinks she has including naturalism and evolution itself. According to Alvin Plantinga:

If you have a defeater for R, you will also have a defeater for any belief you take to be produced by your cognitive faculties, any belief that is a deliverance of your cognitive faculties. But all of your beliefs, as I’m sure you have discovered, are produced by your cognitive faculties. Therefore you have a defeater for any belief you have.

Premise 4
 
The proposition that naturalism and evolution are both true is a self-defeating proposition. Why? because it creates its own reason not to believe in naturalism and evolution.

Conclusion
 
Naturalism and evolution cannot be believed at the same time. In other words, if you believe in evolution, then you cannot rationally accept naturalism and vice versa.

Summary
 
Plantinga's argument does not try to argue that naturalism is false, nor does it try to argue that evolution is false. It simply shows that one cannot rationally believe the theory of evolution and believe in naturalism at the same time. Alvin Plantinga summarizes his whole argument as follows:

(1) P(R | N&E) is low. (2) Anyone who accepts (believes) N&E and sees that P(R/ N&E) is low has a defeater for R. (3) Anyone who has a defeater for R has a defeater for any other belief she thinks she has, including N&E itself. (4) If one who accepts N&E thereby acquires a defeater for N&E, N&E is self-defeating and can’t rationally be accepted. Conclusion: N&E can’t rationally be accepted.

Making the argument even stronger
 
Earlier in the post I mentioned the idea of a defeater defeater. Could there ever be an argument that defeats the defeater for the belief that our cognitive faculties are reliable? If we can't believe that our cognitive faculties are reliable given evolution and naturalism, then there could never be any other belief that could act as a defeater defeater. That means that a belief in evolution and naturalism creates an undefeated defeater for the belief that our cognitive faculties are reliable.

Concluding remarks
 
Some people claim that there is a conflict between science and religion. The alleged conflict between science and religion focuses on a superficial conflict between religion and evolution. In my last post on evolution I argued that there is no serious conflict between evolution and religion (at least regarding Christianity). However, there is deep conflict between evolution and naturalism. Since biological evolution is a respectable field of science, the conflict really lies between science and naturalism.

If you find this interesting, I highly recommend the book Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalismby Alvin Plantinga.

Thoughts on Les Miserables

Last night I went to see Les Miserables. I really liked it. It was very powerful. I have seen Les Miserables on Broadway in New York and at the Utah Shakespeare Festival. I liked the movie the most. I just wanted to share some thoughts about the film and the themes that stood out to me the most about the story.

Conflicting desires/motives.
Having conflicting desires is part of the human experience. We have all felt the inner struggle of having to choose between difficult options. Our decisions in those moments define who we are. The song "Who Am I?" sung by Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) amazingly expresses this aspect of the human experience. Valjean had to choose between being condemned by man (to physical prison) or be damned by God (to a spiritual prison). If he choose to be condemned by man, he would free an innocent person (who was mistakenly thought to be Jean Valjean), but he might in turn condemn all the factory workers who relied on him for work. If he choose to let the innocent man suffer in his place, then he would be damned of God, but he would be free from the condemnation of man's punishment. As he is struggling with this choice, he reminds himself of the promise He made to God that he would serve God. Valjean reminds himself that he is the type of man who must keep his promise. His promise gave him a reason to act that was independent of his immediate desires. It is amazing to me how much Victor Hugo and the writers of the music understand human nature.

Dealing with reality
 
Les Miserables shows how people deal with reality in different ways. The young Cosette tried to evade the reality of her situation by escaping into her imagination (Castle in the clouds). Because she is so young, I think the audience would encourage her escape into her imagination as a means of dealing with reality. I think that we encourage this imagination about Santa Claus for similar reasons (not to escape reality, but to enhance it). I contrast this with Eponine who knows that Marius doesn't love her (romantically), but she uses her imagination to escape reality by pretending that Marius loves her (On My Own). This contrast raises an interesting question: Why is it ok for children to use their imagination in this way, but not so ok for adults to use their imagination in this way?

Some people deal with reality by descending into the basest of wants and desires. The Thenardiers were corrupt and they tried to corrupt anything else that was pure. This is somewhat humorously and disgustingly depicted in the movie when Monsieur Thenardier takes a Santa Claus—a symbol of peace and purity—from the street and corrupts him by exposing him to iniquity. The Thenardiers are the opposite of Jean Valjean. While Jean Valjean would act based on a desire-independent reasons such as his promise to God, the Thenardiers would only act on desire-dependent reasons. On a side note, I thought that Sasha Baron Cohen (who also played as Borat and Ali G) and Helena Bonham Carter were cast perfectly as the Thenadiers.

Sometimes people feel they can't deal with reality when reality doesn't conform to their strict vision of it. The psychological anguish that Javere experienced when Jean Valjean showed him that his vision of the world was false caused Javere to kill himself. Javere preferred his false vision of the world to the actual world. I have encountered people who share this preference. I once asked a Ron Paul supporter what he would choose if he had to choose between living a world that will always have some government coercion or dying. Without hesitation he replied that he would prefer death.

Anne Hathaway
 
I thought that Anne Hathaway was absolutely brilliant. It was as if every muscles of her face and every breath was choreographed perfectly in the song (Dreamed a Dream). I was just in awe at her pure talent and raw performance. She should win Best Supporting Actress.

Revolutionaries look for injustices
 
Injustice lights the fire of revolution. Sometimes revolutionaries are waiting for an injustice to happen. The revolutionaries have reasons for asking for trouble. One reason to do this is to cause the authorities to commit an injustice so that they can use that injustice to cause people to stop collectively acknowledging the authority of those in power. The death of an innocent woman in the mob and the death of Gavrosh (the young boy) and Eponine stirred the revolutionaries to keep fighting for their cause.

Last year some occupy wall-street protestors at UC Davis similarly engaged in unlawful activity to provoke injustice. It was a "peaceful protest" since the protestors weren't violent, but they did use force by locking arms and protesting on private property. The police were ordered to break up the protest. They did it in perhaps the most peaceful way possible—they used pepper spray. This was painted as an "injustice" by the occupiers who wanted to undermine the authorities. The organizers wanted that to happen to legitimize their cause. It is important to discern between legitimate injustices and manufactured injustices when judging those with revolutionary intent. Also, sometimes legitimate injustices can be used for illegitimate means. (the response to the recent mass shootings comes to mind)

Emotion
 
The performance in the movie was very emotional. I am not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. In one sense, I think that good art should not force emotion. It should be an offering to engage with the art. It should allow the freedom to choose our own emotions and empower us to use our emotions to participate with the art. But in another sense I like to feel those emotions and I want to those emotions to be impressed upon me. I seek after those emotion-provoking things for the same reasons that I choose to ride on rollercoasters. Perhaps one reason that I like those emotions to be impressed upon me is because it reflects back on my emotional faculties. Participating in those emotions confirms to ourselves that we are human. It is like we are a thermometer being exposed to extreme ranges of temperature and knowing that we work correctly. So I liked that the movie was so emotional and that it yanked the tears out of my head, but I am also suspicious of whether this is a good thing. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.