Occasionally I've heard a Mormon ask, “Why is so much faith required of us?” Generally he or she means “Why isn’t there more evidence?” The usual answer is that if more evidence was given, it would diminish our free agency, because then everybody would believe and be good. I think that’s a great answer for why such little evidence is given, but not a great answer for the harder question: “Why are we judged by our faith?” Judgment by faith is comforting to those who find it easier to believe than to follow all the commandments, but seems terribly unfair to someone like me. It’s hard to see how believing something without solid evidence is even a good thing, let only why it’s a qualifier for getting into heaven. If I live my life as a good person, and try and help other people not for an eternal reward but rather out of compassion, but am honestly skeptical about the gospel, then why should I be condemned for it? My good friend Gavin Jensen recently wrote a blog post that has a potential answer: maybe faith is really belief based on evidence, rather than belief without evidence. He observes that a willingness to believe without evidence disconnects the believer from reality, and decreases the chance of having correct beliefs. That concept of faith makes a lot more sense to me.
There’s still a problem, in my opinion: I don’t think there is enough evidence given to justify belief in the church. And that’s where the Mormon belief in a spirit world comes in handy. That’s not a criticism, it’s praise. An immediate judgment based on faith right after this life would definitely be very unfair, and the idea of a spirit world makes a lot more sense. The very fact that I’d still be alive as a spirit after my death would be sufficient evidence for me to change my mind about God. I think the belief in a spirit world should make Mormons much more tolerant of skepticism and dissent. So when Mormons are overly zealous about keeping people in the church, I don’t think that’s a necessary consequence of their doctrine, I think it’s a culturally-influenced attitude. I suggest that embracing the doctrine of the spirit world and the tolerance that it enables would be a much better idea.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Friday, December 16, 2011
Economic Research on Tax Rates
In a previous post I argued that a flat tax in not intrinsically fair, and that there's no reason not to tax the rich at a higher rate if it promotes the general welfare. I said those rates should be determined through economic research. There's been a couple of interesting papers lately about the optimal top tax rate that I'm reading, and although they're kind of hard to follow, there have been some good simple reviews: I liked this one and this one. The take-home message is simple though: taxes should be much more progressive than they currently are.
Christopher Hitchens
Today Christopher Hitchens past away. I've read only one of his books, but read dozens of articles and viewed debates, interviews, and documentaries about his ideas. He showed that people who think often do not fit into a simple position on the left-right political spectrum. He was a fascinating writer and a good man. I'll miss his articles and thoughts.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s Beyond Religion
I was skimming the headlines on The Huffington Post this morning, and happened across a rather fascinating excerpt from His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s upcoming book, Beyond Religion.
He finds that both religion and science (thus far) fail to provide for the universal morality necessary for inner peace and world peace:
“Science, for all the benefits it has brought to our external world, has not yet provided scientific grounding for the development of the foundations of personal integrity -- the basic inner human values that we appreciate in others and would do well to promote in ourselves. . . . Today, however, any religion-based answer to the problem of our neglect of inner values can never be universal, and so will be inadequate. What we need today is an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion and can be equally acceptable to those with faith and those without: a secular ethics.”
And what is the basis for the secular ethics? Compassion: “The essence of compassion is a desire to alleviate the suffering of others and to promote their well-being. This is the spiritual principle from which all other positive inner values emerge.” The purpose/goal is also well-stated: “For it is these inner values which are the source of both an ethically harmonious world and the individual peace of mind, confidence and happiness we all seek.”
As I’ve mentioned before, since my abandonment of religion, I’ve been searching for a secular basis of morality as well, taking Sam Harris’ suggestion of seeking a moral basis in science. The Dalai Lama and Sam Harris seem like they’re on the same page. I expect that this book will be similar to The Moral Landscape, other than one of them is targeted specifically for atheists, while the other is more inclusive for all religions.
It is incredibly refreshing to see a major religious leader try and build bridges to secular people, and be inclusive of atheists. It’s incredibly gratifying to feel that kind of outreach from a religious person in a world where atheists are about as trusted as rapists (seriously, google it). My desire to gain trust for us atheists was part of the reason why I decided to be as public as I am about my atheism. Hopefully I’m a good representative of the atheist community. My experience at Atheists of Utah meetings definitely indicates that atheists are generally good, honest people. Hopefully other religious leaders will follow the Dalai Lama’s lead in becoming more inclusive and accepting of everyone, even us godless heathens :)
He finds that both religion and science (thus far) fail to provide for the universal morality necessary for inner peace and world peace:
“Science, for all the benefits it has brought to our external world, has not yet provided scientific grounding for the development of the foundations of personal integrity -- the basic inner human values that we appreciate in others and would do well to promote in ourselves. . . . Today, however, any religion-based answer to the problem of our neglect of inner values can never be universal, and so will be inadequate. What we need today is an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion and can be equally acceptable to those with faith and those without: a secular ethics.”
And what is the basis for the secular ethics? Compassion: “The essence of compassion is a desire to alleviate the suffering of others and to promote their well-being. This is the spiritual principle from which all other positive inner values emerge.” The purpose/goal is also well-stated: “For it is these inner values which are the source of both an ethically harmonious world and the individual peace of mind, confidence and happiness we all seek.”
As I’ve mentioned before, since my abandonment of religion, I’ve been searching for a secular basis of morality as well, taking Sam Harris’ suggestion of seeking a moral basis in science. The Dalai Lama and Sam Harris seem like they’re on the same page. I expect that this book will be similar to The Moral Landscape, other than one of them is targeted specifically for atheists, while the other is more inclusive for all religions.
It is incredibly refreshing to see a major religious leader try and build bridges to secular people, and be inclusive of atheists. It’s incredibly gratifying to feel that kind of outreach from a religious person in a world where atheists are about as trusted as rapists (seriously, google it). My desire to gain trust for us atheists was part of the reason why I decided to be as public as I am about my atheism. Hopefully I’m a good representative of the atheist community. My experience at Atheists of Utah meetings definitely indicates that atheists are generally good, honest people. Hopefully other religious leaders will follow the Dalai Lama’s lead in becoming more inclusive and accepting of everyone, even us godless heathens :)
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Free Will
Until recently, I had considered the existence of free will to be a moral dilemma. I understood that free will, in the sense of transcending our prior experience and genetics, did not exist. But I also knew that we needed to act as if it did exist to hold people responsible for their actions and to have a functioning society. I was curious to see what Sam Harris would say about it in a book I’m currently reading, The Moral Landscape.
I expected that he would accept that free will does not exist (in the metaphysical sense), but what surprised me was that he embraced it as an advance in morality. He said that we shouldn’t be locking people up out of retribution, or punishment, but out of concern for what they might do. If someone has demonstrated that they are a threat to society, and might cause harm in the future, it makes sense to lock them up. Not out of punishment, but out of concern for the consequences of their future actions.
Recently, more people have begun to attribute misbehavior to disorders of the brain, rather than simply the choices of that person. This represents a step towards seeing the mind as the product of the brain, as the difference between a person’s idiosyncrasies or personality and brain disorders is more a difference of degree rather than in kind. The more we understand this, the less we feel a strong desire for retribution for undesired or even harmful behavior. Rather, we become motivated out of concern for the person or the consequences of their actions.
While writing this blog entry, I discovered that Sam Harris has a blog post summarizing some of what he said in his book. Since he’s undoubtedly a better writer than I am, it would be a great article to read if I didn’t convey this concept very clearly.
The bottom line, though, is that we need to be clear about the objectives of our morality. If it is to promote human well-being, as I think it is, then our better understanding of how our minds work may require a change in our definition of justice. I now agree with Sam Harris: that redefinition of justice would be a step in the right direction.
I expected that he would accept that free will does not exist (in the metaphysical sense), but what surprised me was that he embraced it as an advance in morality. He said that we shouldn’t be locking people up out of retribution, or punishment, but out of concern for what they might do. If someone has demonstrated that they are a threat to society, and might cause harm in the future, it makes sense to lock them up. Not out of punishment, but out of concern for the consequences of their future actions.
Recently, more people have begun to attribute misbehavior to disorders of the brain, rather than simply the choices of that person. This represents a step towards seeing the mind as the product of the brain, as the difference between a person’s idiosyncrasies or personality and brain disorders is more a difference of degree rather than in kind. The more we understand this, the less we feel a strong desire for retribution for undesired or even harmful behavior. Rather, we become motivated out of concern for the person or the consequences of their actions.
While writing this blog entry, I discovered that Sam Harris has a blog post summarizing some of what he said in his book. Since he’s undoubtedly a better writer than I am, it would be a great article to read if I didn’t convey this concept very clearly.
The bottom line, though, is that we need to be clear about the objectives of our morality. If it is to promote human well-being, as I think it is, then our better understanding of how our minds work may require a change in our definition of justice. I now agree with Sam Harris: that redefinition of justice would be a step in the right direction.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Working out
This post is kind of a review of my favorite app.
I like being in shape. I feel good, I feel good about myself, I feel good about how I look. But staying in shape takes a lot of time. I used to drive to a gym, work out for an hour, drive home, and take a shower. It took darn near two hours a day, usually after work. Whenever I got busy, the workouts got cut.
I think I've now discovered a better way. First I found this book. It explains how to work out all your major muscle groups at home. It also explains why cardio is a waste of time: if you want to burn fat, the best thing to do is to build muscle and raise your baseline metabolism. Later, a companion iOS app was released. I immediately bought it too, and it's been slowly improving over time, and release 2.0 made it a ton better than the original. That's what I've been using for my workouts for the last few weeks. The iPhone app now has all the workouts and exercises listed in it, so if you just want the workouts, that's all you really need.
It's nice because I can hammer out a 30-35 min. workout in the morning, take my shower, and go to work. It doesn't take a lot of time, so I keep doing it even when I'm busy. I like doing everything from an app because you don't need to remember what you're supposed to do, it just tells you. It also keeps track of all your workouts so you can look back at your workout history anytime. I love it.
Sorry this sounds like a product promo, but I guess that's what it is. It's about a $2 app that makes it unnecessary to have a gym membership, saves a ton of time, and makes you feel good about yourself. If you have an iPhone or an iPod Touch, get it. It'll be easily worth it if you do it.
It's not perfect yet, I'm hoping the developer will continue to improve it.
I like being in shape. I feel good, I feel good about myself, I feel good about how I look. But staying in shape takes a lot of time. I used to drive to a gym, work out for an hour, drive home, and take a shower. It took darn near two hours a day, usually after work. Whenever I got busy, the workouts got cut.
I think I've now discovered a better way. First I found this book. It explains how to work out all your major muscle groups at home. It also explains why cardio is a waste of time: if you want to burn fat, the best thing to do is to build muscle and raise your baseline metabolism. Later, a companion iOS app was released. I immediately bought it too, and it's been slowly improving over time, and release 2.0 made it a ton better than the original. That's what I've been using for my workouts for the last few weeks. The iPhone app now has all the workouts and exercises listed in it, so if you just want the workouts, that's all you really need.
It's nice because I can hammer out a 30-35 min. workout in the morning, take my shower, and go to work. It doesn't take a lot of time, so I keep doing it even when I'm busy. I like doing everything from an app because you don't need to remember what you're supposed to do, it just tells you. It also keeps track of all your workouts so you can look back at your workout history anytime. I love it.
Sorry this sounds like a product promo, but I guess that's what it is. It's about a $2 app that makes it unnecessary to have a gym membership, saves a ton of time, and makes you feel good about yourself. If you have an iPhone or an iPod Touch, get it. It'll be easily worth it if you do it.
It's not perfect yet, I'm hoping the developer will continue to improve it.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Competing on Corporate Taxes
This is an unusually nerdy post, so if you're not into economics, skip it.
I'm going to briefly discuss why it's unnecessary for the U.S. to compete with other countries on corporate tax rates.
Imagine you're running a country. Let's just focus on maximizing good for the long run first, then talk about short-term effects. The basic principle is that in the long run, the exchange rate will change to make your imports equal your exports. Now let's say that a company moves a plant from the U.S. to China. Presumably, they can produce, say, product A, more cheaply in China than they can in the U.S. That means that the resources (labor, etc.) that would have been used to produce product A can be employed elsewhere in the U.S. economy. Assuming that those resources can produce a product B, which is close to the value of product A, and product A can now be produced more cheaply, productivity has increased. If many things begin to be produced in China, such that China is exporting more than it imports, then the value of China's currency will increase until imports again equal exports. Now, realistically, China holds down the value of their currency by buying tons of our currency and stockpiling it. That basically means they're making their stuff artificially cheap: they're exporting products, we're exporting money (which we can freely print). So if they do this for the long-term, we're the winners, because we're getting the goods and services without having to produce anything. If this is done in the long-term, it doesn't create U.S. unemployment because wages will adjust to create full employment.
Now, let's consider the short term. During a recession, aggregate demand is too low, and it needs to be increased. Suddenly having a weak currency is very desirable because it increases the attractiveness of your goods overseas, and can increase your exports. That's why when we hit the recession, all of a sudden everyone is mad at China for keeping their currency weak. It wouldn't matter during normal times, but during recessions, everyone wants to be the ones with the weak currencies. Getting companies to build plants in your country is suddenly important because it increases expenditures. But it's important to realize that it's only important during a recession, not during normal times. So a temporary tax discount to get companies to come here makes sense right now, but long-term dropping of corporate tax rates to "compete" with other countries does not.
Economics is awesome.
I'm going to briefly discuss why it's unnecessary for the U.S. to compete with other countries on corporate tax rates.
Imagine you're running a country. Let's just focus on maximizing good for the long run first, then talk about short-term effects. The basic principle is that in the long run, the exchange rate will change to make your imports equal your exports. Now let's say that a company moves a plant from the U.S. to China. Presumably, they can produce, say, product A, more cheaply in China than they can in the U.S. That means that the resources (labor, etc.) that would have been used to produce product A can be employed elsewhere in the U.S. economy. Assuming that those resources can produce a product B, which is close to the value of product A, and product A can now be produced more cheaply, productivity has increased. If many things begin to be produced in China, such that China is exporting more than it imports, then the value of China's currency will increase until imports again equal exports. Now, realistically, China holds down the value of their currency by buying tons of our currency and stockpiling it. That basically means they're making their stuff artificially cheap: they're exporting products, we're exporting money (which we can freely print). So if they do this for the long-term, we're the winners, because we're getting the goods and services without having to produce anything. If this is done in the long-term, it doesn't create U.S. unemployment because wages will adjust to create full employment.
Now, let's consider the short term. During a recession, aggregate demand is too low, and it needs to be increased. Suddenly having a weak currency is very desirable because it increases the attractiveness of your goods overseas, and can increase your exports. That's why when we hit the recession, all of a sudden everyone is mad at China for keeping their currency weak. It wouldn't matter during normal times, but during recessions, everyone wants to be the ones with the weak currencies. Getting companies to build plants in your country is suddenly important because it increases expenditures. But it's important to realize that it's only important during a recession, not during normal times. So a temporary tax discount to get companies to come here makes sense right now, but long-term dropping of corporate tax rates to "compete" with other countries does not.
Economics is awesome.