Why I Hope Obama Wins

Here are a couple of simple reasons that I strongly support Barack Obama over Mitt Romney for the presidency: he supports a more progressive income tax, and is more fiscally responsible.

President Obama recognizes that some tax increases are going to be necessary to reduce our national debt long-term. I like his Buffett Rule: that people earning over $1 million/year should pay a tax rate of at least 30 percent. I think this is in line with the literature on optimal taxation (like the excellent Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez paper), which not only supports the idea of progressive taxation, but always (to my knowledge) concludes that we should have a tax system that is much more progressive than it currently is.

Mitt Romney's tax proposals would significantly raise the national debt, and are fiscally irresponsible. The assumptions made to argue otherwise are questionable at best. Reagan and Bush after him are responsible for running up the national debt unnecessarily during good economic times. The recession that began at the end of Bush's term has caused the national debt to continue to increase under President Obama, but I think the ultimate cause of that was deregulation, and that increase was necessary during an economic catastrophe. Obama supports regulating Wall Street to prevent something similar from happening again. An increase in tax rates on high incomes will reduce the deficit and will not significantly hurt the economy because people with high incomes are more likely to save their money during a recession anyway. Tax cuts on people with low incomes and direct government spending tends to stimulate the economy during a recession, because that money gets spent, and not saved.

Barack Obama is simply more fiscally responsible and has tax proposals that are more in line with the interests of middle-class Americans, rather than the very rich. His proposals make good economic sense.

Principles in Finding Truth

Some of my suggestions for any seekers of truth out there.

1. Read widely

I see a lot of people on Facebook who seem to have simply absorbed the ideas that were around them as they grew up, and now believe those things to be absolute truth, without having been exposed to or seriously considered other beliefs. What they don’t seem to realize is that their real reason for their beliefs is that they were born in an area where those beliefs are common. This obviously isn’t a good way of determining what is true. The best antidote is reading widely. This is a good way of getting exposure to lots of different ideas, preferably by people who actually believe those ideas. If the only things you know about liberal political ideas are the criticisms you’ve heard from conservatives, then you haven’t given them a fair shot. Read a popular book by a liberal, and one by a conservative. Read a book by a theist, and an atheist. Give them both a chance.

2. Trust yourself

On some issues, you’ll be able to identify experts, and it’s okay to trust experts. However, on some basic issues like whether God exists, it’s not really possible to “be humble” or trust someone else on the matter, because you’d be the one choosing who you should trust, so you’re the one choosing what to believe either way. If you’re choosing to trust that person because you know them (even if he or she is also a very good and smart person), you’re falling into the same trap of believing something because it’s the local tradition. If you’re interested in truth, you can’t just rely on someone else. Find out for yourself by hearing out many different ideas.

3. Don’t be afraid of information

Growing up, I was sometimes be made to feel afraid of “anti-Mormon” literature. If you’re a real seeker of truth, you cannot choose your destination. You must follow the evidence, wherever it leads. If there’s information that can convince you of something, then maybe you should be convinced of that thing. Never be afraid of knowledge.

4. Assume as little as possible

If a creationist is determined to interpret all available information inside the framework of creationism, he will never be convinced that creationism is false. He will make up alternative explanations for fossils, DNA, and anatomical evidence. It’s like he’s wearing creationist-tinted glasses that he sees the world through. Similarly, if someone is determined to interpret all evidence according to a Mormon, Catholic, or Muslim framework of thought, no evidence will ever convince him or her that their perspective is false. If you assume that reading the Book of Mormon and praying will tell you whether it is true, you’re still wearing Mormon-tinted glasses. To find the truth, you must be as unbiased and objective as possible, and that means make as few assumptions as possible. It’s okay to assume that logic will lead you right, and that the world basically is as it appears to be. If those assumptions are false, then knowing the truth is impossible anyway. But assume as little else as possible.

5. It’s okay to be unsure

You don’t have to “take a stand” or “choose” your beliefs. If you are an altruistic seeker of truth, you have an obligation to help your fellow seekers by being honest about what you’ve discovered and how confident you are about it. Don’t claim to be more sure about your beliefs than you really are. Let the evidence guide you, and say it exactly as you see it. Be honest.

My Favorite Gadgets

Too many serious posts of late, so I thought I'd write about... MY FAVORITE GADGETS!!! It's no secret I'm a super-nerd gadget lover. I keep up with the latest rumors of new gadgets, and I love the ones I've got already. So here are my favorites:

Kindle DX

I LOVE my Kindle DX. I like to read a lot: books, random articles, academic papers, whatever. I also spend a lot of time staring at LCD screens, so reading from e-ink is a welcome relief. If I find a long article on the internet I want to read, I often copy it into a text file and put it on my Kindle just because it is so much more comfortable to read there. I also read a lot of academic papers and PDFs, so having the large screen is really helpful. It's my favorite gadget.

Nexus 7

I LOVE my Nexus 7. The 7" size is super convenient, Nvidia's Tegra 3 processor and Jelly Bean makes it super smooth, games run great on it, it has great build quality and a great screen. It's by far the best 7" tablet out now, and in my opinion, the best Android tablet as well. Far better than the Kindle Fire or the Nook, and cheaper than anything else, and the best bang for the buck tablet available anywhere. I was surprised at how much better the video call quality was from my HTC One S, and the One S really should be just as good as the Galaxy S III or any other phone out there. The speakers on the Nexus 7 are way better, the microphone is way better, the front-facing camera is way better, and the processor is significantly better. I don't mind not having a rear camera because my phone has a very nice rear camera already. Most of all, I love having the latest and greatest version of Android, and knowing that when the next version of Android comes out, I'll be the first to have it. Google takes care of its Nexus line. It's a tablet that will be awesome for years to come.

HTC One S

I like my HTC One S. It's very slim, nice-looking, pretty fast, and has a great camera. It runs Android 4.0, and HTC is pretty good about updating their phones' software. But it's had some weird problems with wifi calling and skype, and I don't like Sense, HTC's custom skin for Android. It has the best rear-facing camera out on a phone today (other than Nokia's Pureview 808), but it's still nowhere close to the quality of even the cheapest DSLRs (which is true of any phone's camera). It's the perfect phone for someone who loves taking pictures and videos with their phone, and even though I'd rather have vanilla Android or Windows Phone, it's one of my favorite gadgets.

Natural vs. Supernatural

In a discussion about my post on the Atonement, a couple of people didn't see why I don't think the Law of Justice that necessitates the Atonement could be a natural law. This gets right to the heart of the difference between the natural and the supernatural worldviews, so I thought I'd try and answer that more clearly.

The naturalist, or scientific, worldview asserts that things behave the way they do because they are following laws. The laws of quantum physics appear to fully describe the behavior of certain particles, such as protons, neutrons, electrons, photons, and others. Because these laws have been accurate in predicting the behavior of these particles in virtually every case, it seems likely that inside anything composed of these particles, the particles are behaving the same way. The behavior of whatever is composed of these particles is therefore almost certainly the result of all of its particles following the laws that govern each particle's motion.

Everything we've learned seems to confirm this conclusion. The laws of chemistry conform to, and can even be derived from, the laws of quantum mechanics. The behavior of cells can be explained using the laws of chemistry, and so on. Our behavior, and the behavior of everything composed of matter, can ultimately be explained, at least in theory, even if not in precise detail, by the laws of quantum mechanics.

So now back to the Atonement: it's necessitated by a Law of Justice, that apparently governs us, but can't be derived from more basic laws like the laws of quantum mechanics, even in theory. What could you possibly decompose the Law of Justice into that could be derived from more basic laws? That's what I mean when I say that it couldn't be a natural law, and it can only make sense if you accept the supernatural.

The Problem with the Atonement

The central doctrine of Christianity is the Atonement. It’s a powerful doctrine that often affects people very deeply. It plays strongly on our emotions, our insecurities, and our senses of gratitute and love. Even now, as an unbeliever, the analogies used to explain it, such as this one, affect me very deeply. But as emotional and powerful as this concept is, I don’t think it is logical. I haven’t yet heard an explanation of the Atonement that makes sense to me. The explanation given in the video I linked to is a pretty typical Mormon example, and I’m going to discuss the problems with it. Why was the Atonement necessary? The seminary video explains the conflicting demands of the Law of Justice (there must be punishment if a sin has been committed) with the Law of Mercy (when repentance has occurred, an offender may be forgiven the punishment). But the “Law of Justice” is not just. Justice would demand that the sinner himself be punished, not a surrogate. The “Law of Mercy” is similarly unmerciful. Mercy would not require a punishment at all, not merely punish someone else. If God was truly merciful, it seems he would desire to simply forgive the penitant without severely punishing His perfect and guiltless Son. So why doesn’t He? A common explanation is that there is some Law, related to the ones described above, that even God Himself cannot break, which requires the punishment. But what kind of law could it be? There are two types of laws:

1. Natural laws, which are descriptions of how things work, like the law of gravity, which cannot be broken.
2. Human laws, which require require someone intelligent to create, interpret, and enforce the law.

So which type of law would force a benevolent God to punish a perfect being? The only way I can think of to argue that this “Law” is a natural law, would be to suggest that sin creates some kind of evil energy, attached to the sinner, that can only be alleviated through suffering. That’s pretty metaphysical, and substantially different in nature than anything we've ever observed scientifically, which makes me think that it's also very unlikely. Concepts like justice and mercy seem to imply intelligent interpretation. What constitutes “sin” seems to change over time. For example, it apparently wasn't a sin to drink in Christ’s time, but is now. But if God is subject to the decisions of other intelligent beings who are neither just nor merciful, then why have faith in a Gospel that is missing such important information as who these beings are and why they are intent on their cruelty? Either way, the Atonement doesn’t make any sense to me. Even if someone found a logical explanation, how come that explanation isn’t regularly taught in church, or in the scriptures? If there was such an explanation, it seems like that would be important information to share.

Is the Spirit Evidence of God?

The Witness of the Holy Ghost is often cited as evidence of the Gospel, and even as evidence of the existence of God. I know from personal experience that religious experiences can be very powerful. But I now think there are good reasons to question whether they are really evidence of the divine:

1. Religious experiences tend to be culturally specific and socially influenced. Most people’s religious experiences tend to lead them to believe in either the religion they were raised in, or the religion of their friends. Our feelings in general tend to be strongly influenced by our peers, and religious feelings seem to be the same.
2. Religious experiences often contradict each other. If you think one religion is right, you have to admit that most people’s religious experiences lead them to the wrong conclusion. Even people who have been exposed to the “right” religion have experiences that lead them to other religions. LDS church leaders seeking the spirit often disagree on what God wants [1].
3. Memories change over time. Powerful religious experiences are often not recorded clearly and specifically until long after they've occurred. Especially when a story is retold several times, its main points tend to be increasingly emphasized and then exaggerated over time. The memory itself will change accordingly [2]. A good example is the story of Brigham Young’s “transfiguration,” which grew from a story about Brigham Young’s leadership presence into a story of him transforming in appearance and speech into Joseph Smith [3].
4. Confirmation Bias causes us to remember the experiences that confirm our beliefs. We tend to forget all the times we prayed or “had impressions” and nothing remarkable happened. We also go through so many experiences, that what seem like amazing coincidences are actually very likely to occur occasionally. If those seemingly amazing coincidences confirm our beliefs in some way, you can bet that story will be remembered and shared.
5. Even very spiritual people are often wrong. Even blessings from Apostles sometimes do not come to pass. One good example is this story:

“When he was eleven year old, James Talmage accidentally blinded his younger brother Albert with a pitchfork. At age thirty-one, while writing the first draft of “The Articles of Faith,” James asked members of the First Presidency and the Twelve to administer to his brother. They inquired if he had the faith to be healed after twenty years of blindness, and Albert said “Yes.” In the Priesthood ordinance of healing, they promised him a complete restoration of his sight. James recorded his equally unconditional expectation for the fulfillment of this apostolic blessing. Days passed, then weeks, then months, and Albert remained blind. Years passed, and Albert received equally emphatic promises of restored sight from other apostles and prophets. He remained blind the rest of his life. Did either brother experience religions doubts as a consequence? The diaries of James E. Talmage do not say so specifically, but they do indicate his own bewilderment and ultimate resignation about the non-fulfillment of Priesthood blessings given and received in absolute faith.” [4]

All of this is to say that spiritual experiences are not surprising. In order for evidence to provide strong confirmation of a theory, the evidence must be different than what we would otherwise expect. Given what we know about human psychology, most spiritual experiences do not meet this standard, and hence do not provide strong confirmation of either the Gospel of the existence of God. I conclude that religious experiences, although powerful, are not reliable guides to truth. I am all for seeking after and having spiritual experiences in our lives, and I try to nurture myself spiritually (meaning mentally and emotionally) as well. But when determining the nature of physical reality, I think that reliable, repeatable, and verifiable evidence should definitely have precedence.

[1] The Mormon Hierarchy series by D. Michael Quinn illustrates the many disagreements church leaders have had on many subjects.
[2] http://www.amazon.com/The-Invisible-Gorilla-Intuitions-Deceive/dp/0307459667
[3] http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V34N0102_171.pdf
[4] D. Michael Quinn, “To Whom Shall We Go?”, Sunstone #137, May 2005.

Android vs. iOS

I just switched from iOS to Android a few days ago. I used to be carrying around a 4th generation iPod Touch with me (along with a Nokia 5310), and I just recently switched to a Samsung Galaxy S Blaze, which is pretty much a Galaxy S II but is a little smaller. It’s made me appreciate a few things about iOS: its slickness, ease-of-use, simplicity, its lack of bloatware and redundancy, and how easy it is to find top-quality apps in a well-organized app store. But there is a one attribute that I LOVE about Android: customizability. The launchers are AWESOME! With iOS, I was getting bored of its interface and I couldn’t change it at all. With Android, I can change its look and feel very easily, which is a lot of fun.