Why Good People Do Bad Things

NPR did a story yesterday, Psychology Of Fraud: Why Good People Do Bad Things. Go read or listen to it; I think it's very interesting. Here are a couple of money quotes.

Over the past couple of decades, psychologists have documented many different ways that our minds fail to see what is directly in front of us. They've come up with a concept called "bounded ethicality": That's the notion that cognitively, our ability to behave ethically is seriously limited, because we don't always see the ethical big picture.

We like to help each other, especially people we identify with. And when we are helping people, we really don't see what we are doing as unethical.

This doesn't really surprise me. Perhaps it explains something that occurred to me a while ago, which is this: Depending on how a story opens (especially a movie) otherwise moral people root for criminals. You know the kind of story I'm talking about--the bank robbing bandits who elude police, the prisoner trying to escape, the scammers who take on a casino, etc. If the story can get us to identify with the main characters, we root for their success even if it happens to be in conflict with the law and with our own moral principles.

Is there a practical application to all of this?

Now if these psychologists and economists are right, if we are all capable of behaving profoundly unethically without realizing it, then our workplaces and regulations are poorly organized. They're not designed to take into account the cognitively flawed human beings that we are. They don't attempt to structure things around our weaknesses.

Something to think about. It makes me glad that Mormons are often reminded of the need for honesty. (Some occasional spectacular failures notwithstanding.)

---

Continue reading...

Abinadi and Resurrection Contraries

Joseph Smith once wrote that "by proving contraries, truth is made manifest" (History of the Church, 6:428). I noticed something incongruous in the Book of Mormon, and Joseph's statement seems apt for it. I don't imagine I am the first person to notice it, but I don't recall ever having seen it discussed before. First, let's lay the groundwork.

The Book of Mormon prophet Abinadi taught the following about the resurrection (Mosiah 15:21 - 25):

21 And there cometh a resurrection, even a first resurrection; yea, even a resurrection of those that have been, and who are, and who shall be, even until the resurrection of Christ—for so shall he be called.
22 And now, the resurrection of all the prophets, and all those that have believed in their words, or all those that have kept the commandments of God, shall come forth in the first resurrection; therefore, they are the first resurrection.
23 They are raised to dwell with God who has redeemed them; thus they have eternal life through Christ, who has broken the bands of death.
24 And these are those who have part in the first resurrection; and these are they that have died before Christ came, in their ignorance, not having salvation declared unto them. And thus the Lord bringeth about the restoration of these; and they have a part in the first resurrection, or have eternal life, being redeemed by the Lord.
25 And little children also have eternal life.

A straightforward reading of this passage has been summarized by Robert J. Matthews (I have re-numbered his points for the purposes of this post).

[1.] There is a first resurrection, consisting of those who have been, who are, and who shall be from the beginning down to the time of Christ. This means "all the prophets, and all those that have believed in their words, or all those that have kept the commandments"—they are the first resurrection (15:21-23).

[2.] Those who died in ignorance, before Christ came, to whom the plan of salvation was never declared, shall have part in the first resurrection (15:24).

[3.] "Little children [who die as little children] also have eternal life," which in the context of Abinadi's discourse means that they will be in the first resurrection (15:25).

Presumably, this 'first resurrection' is a reference to those who are said--in both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon--to have risen following the resurrection of Jesus. Matthews again:

The first resurrection that Abinadi spoke of consists of the righteous who lived from the time of Adam to the time of Christ. We who live after the time of Christ know of a "second session" of the first resurrection, one stretching from Jesus' time to his second coming and then on through the Millennium. Abinadi spoke from his perspective; we speak from ours.

With this in place, let's consider the resurrection in connection with archaeology. I've seen one LDS commentator speculate that empty tombs and graves discovered by archaeologists may be evidence that the person was resurrected, rather than that grave robbers and/or animals removed and destroyed the remains, or that they simply decayed. Of course there is no way to test such an idea since, as far as we know, resurrected bodies leave no identifying traces. Further, we have no idea whether any particular person would be judged worthy of inclusion in the first resurrection. And although Abinadi said that the ignorant would also be included, which would presumably include the vast majority of people, Matthews points out that modern revelation gives the caveat that "all who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God" (D&C 137:7).

So when archaeologists find human remains that pre-date ~30 B.C., can we infer that the person was either not righteous, or would not have received the gospel if they had access to it? The vast geographical and temporal range of discovered remains makes this a difficult proposition to accept, but we simply don't know what these people were like or how God would judge them.

But what about little children? If little children (who died as little children) up until the resurrection of Jesus were included in the first resurrection, as Abinadi seemed to say, then we can make a simple prediction: archaeologists should not find their bodily remains. How does this prediction hold up? Not well.

This child of 6-12 months, decorated with beads, lived and died over 8000 years ago. Click picture for more information.

And so we have a contradiction: Abinadi seems to be saying that little children are included in the first resurrection, which took place at the resurrection of Jesus. But archaeologists have found the remains of little children dating from before Jesus. We're missing something; there are several ways the contradiction might be resolved. Here are a few possibilities I can think of.

1. Matthews' interpretation of Abinadi is incorrect. Little children will have eternal life, but are not included in the (first) first resurrection. Abinadi's statement about children was really more of an afterthought.

2. Abinadi made an unjustified inference, or Alma (who wrote the original account) or Mormon (the editor) misunderstood Abinadi.

3. Alma (son of Alma) was a little unsure about the timing of the (first) first resurrection. "I do not say that their resurrection cometh at the resurrection of Christ; but behold, I give it as my opinion, that the souls and the bodies are reunited, of the righteous, at the resurrection of Christ, and his ascension into heaven [Alma 40:20]." Thus, although some people were resurrected at the time of Jesus' resurrection, Alma gives us some leeway to think that the (first) first resurrection has actually not been completed for some reason.

4. The (first) first resurrection was limited in scope and served more as a sign, both of Jesus' resurrection and of things to come, rather than a comprehensive event.

5. The resurrection does not necessarily incorporate surviving physical remains.

6. (For fun)--Just as (according to some) dinosaur fossils aren't really millions of years old, all discovered remains of little children really post-date ~30 B.C.

Some of these explanations are more likely than others. Arguments can be made against each of them. With respect to #5, statements by Joseph Smith and Joseph F. Smith (and probably others) indicate that the body you lay down is the one you take up. That a few bone fragments might be left out seems reasonable, but whole skeletons or mummified flesh?

So where does this leave us? There are several lessons we might draw out of this. We could talk about how we don't believe that prophets are infallible, or that canonized scripture can contain mistakes (see the title page of the Book of Mormon), or that our understanding can change as new facts and revelation come to light. It seems to me that this is a case where science clearly informs (or should inform) interpretation of scripture. Sometimes people draw a contrast between science and revelation--that whereas science is tentative and open to revision, the revelations are not because God only speaks the truth. However, I reject that division because the revelations must be interpreted, and those interpretations may be wrong, and because there is always a possibility that new revelation will dramatically revise the old.

In my view both science and scripture are tentative and open to revision.

---

Continue reading...

What the Big Bang Means for Mormons

Since we're on the topic of the Big Bang, I want to highlight an article from the FARMS Review (now Mormon Studies Review) in 2004: The Big Bang: What Does It Mean for Us? by Hollis R. Johnson, an emeritus professor of astronomy at Indiana University. The essay is a response to an evangelical critique of LDS doctrine, but it serves as a nice accessible introduction to cosmology. You should read the whole thing, but I'll give you the nickel version.

To understand the evangelical critique, you have to know that the original formulation of the Big Big bang envisioned the initial state of the universe as infinitely dense and infinitely small, known as a singularity. This fit nicely with creation ex nihilo, and also implied that if God exists in space and time, then he was a product of the Big Bang.

This notion of singularity has had a lot of staying power in the popular understanding of the Big Bang, but Johnson points out that science has moved on and the singularity has been discarded. For one thing, the notion of a singularity is at odds with quantum mechanics because it would violate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. (I presume that this holds for black holes as well?) This and other questions gave rise to inflationary cosmology, and the concept of the multiverse.

So what does the multiverse mean for our theology? Well it supports the teaching that matter (i.e. energy) is eternal. It's less clear to me what it means for God or our future in this universe, but Johnson thinks it's premature to take a strong stand on these things anyway. He chastises critics for assuming any particular scientific model as the final truth, especially when dealing with a topic as large and mysterious as cosmology. His frustration with theologians comes through in these two gems:

Creation from nothing is clearly a fantasy devised by certain theologians, perhaps in a misguided attempt to glorify God by making of him a fantastic magician.

How long is eternity? Theologians can speculate forever, while scientists continue to provide a factual time line.

The straightforward and unapologetic explanation of cosmology makes this essay one of my favorite FARMS Review essays.

Note:

I found a minor mistake that is hardly worth bringing up, but I'm going to anyway. Footnote 7 says: "Note that numbers in an exponent simply show the number of zeros after (+) or before (-) the given digits. For example, 10⁵ means 1 followed by 5 zeros (100,000), and 10^—9 means 1 preceded by a period and 9 zeros (.0000000001)." The first part is correct, but the second is not. 10^—9 = .000000001; one preceded by eight zeros.

---

Continue reading...

The Big Bang: Let's Get Some Things Straight

In the wake of General Conference, I thought we might briefly review the science (which Elder Richard G. Scott has told us, is one of two ways to find truth) of the Big Bang.

What is the Big Bang?

In the mid-twentieth century, astronomers made some observations indicating that distant galaxies are moving away from each other, and that the universe is expanding. This implies that in the past they were much closer together. Astronomers reasoned that at some point in the past (~13.7 billion years ago) the universe was compressed into an extremely hot and dense state--so hot that atoms could not yet form because the high energies would rip them apart. The term Big Bang (initially coined as a term of mockery) refers to the rapid expansion of this compressed universe.

One prediction made based on the theory was that as the universe expanded and cooled, and atoms began to form, electromagnetic radiation should have begun escaping and might still be observable, but at much lower energy. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1965 fulfilled this prediction and gave empirical support to the theory. Although the original Big Bang theory has been modified and added upon, these core features remain.

Was the Big Bang an explosion?

As mentioned above, the universe began in an extremely hot and dense state and rapidly expanded. In this sense, the Big Bang was like an explosion. However, the result of the Big Bang was not like that of explosions. One way of looking at entropy is as a measure of disorder in the universe. When we think of explosions, we think of ordered material being scattered into unordered pieces. From an energy perspective, concentrated energy in the fuel is released and converted into heat and kinetic energy. We end up with scattered pieces of matter, and energy converted into forms that aren't useful. In other words, explosions increase entropy. However, counter to intuition, the result of the Big Bang was a universe of low entropy. As the universe expanded and cooled, matter was able to condense into atoms--especially hydrogen. Hydrogen atoms were attracted to each other by gravity until they reached such density that they began to fuse together, forming stars. Stars have made the heavier elements of which we are composed.

The main point here is that the Big Bang did not use up fuel to scatter material throughout the universe. Rather, it created the raw fuel (hydrogen) from which all else would be made. In other words, the universe created by the Big Bang was one of low entropy and pregnant with potential.

Did the Big Bang create life?

Not directly, no. The Big Bang occurred about 13.7 billion years ago. Earth is only about 4.5 billion years old, so all life on Earth is obviously younger than that. All elements on Earth were created through the birth and death of stars.

Does order require intelligence?

There are many examples of order in the natural world that do not require intelligence. Many of the features of our universe (stars, galaxies, orbits, etc) are the result of simple laws like gravity. Intuition is not a good guide on these matters because nature is cleverer than we are. I covered this topic in a previous post, Order from Chaos. (It includes a couple of neat videos.) Similarly, there does not appear to be any natural law that would preclude the origin and evolution of life on Earth over billions of years by natural processes.

Whether divine intervention occurred in the formation of the universe or life on Earth is a historical question that cannot be ruled out by science, but neither does there seem to be any great need or evidence for it, scientifically speaking.


Further Reading:

Cosmology Primer

---

Continue reading...

If You Bet Against Einstein, Prepare to Pay Up

Last year physicists in Europe reported the detection of neutrinos that traveled faster than light, which would violate relativity. The prospect was intriguing if unlikely. Further investigation revealed some problems with the experimental setup, including a loose optical fiber connection that would pretty well account for the apparent speed discrepancy. Now measurements from a different detector show the neutrinos obeying the speed limit.

More here and here.


I think this whole episode is a nice example of how science works. An odd result was observed that contradicted well-established science. That being the case, every effort needed to be made to rule out bugs in the system, and it needed to be substantiated by others. In this instance bugs were found, however, and independent measurements fail to support the anomalous result. It's looking like the story essentially ends there.

There are people who seem to constantly lick their lips at the prospect of a major scientific paradigm being overthrown, and they think the resistance of scientists to jump headlong into the new way is simply because of hubris or materialistic blindness. They remind me, especially in this case, of Krusty the Clown, from The Simpsons, who once bet against the Harlem Globetrotters because he thought the opposing team was due for a win.

---

Continue reading...

2012 MTA Conference

FYI:

The 2012 conference of the Mormon Transhumanist Association will be held on 6 April 2012 from 9am to 5pm at the Salt Lake City Public Library in Salt Lake City, Utah. The conference is open to the public.

More info and registration here.

I won't be able to attend, but it looks interesting.

---

Continue reading...

Do Human Races Exist?

While the stir over the Bott gaffe on race was playing out last week, there was, coincidentally, a concurrent discussion in the science blogosphere about whether human races even exist, in a biological sense. Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne recently took up the issue, and gave his view that races do exist, but they are hard to define and probably not of much biological relevance except occasionally in medicine. Nick Matzke responded at The Panda's Thumb (see Matzke's post for links to Coyne) and argued that genetic clustering that is sometimes interpreted as demarcating race is actually an artifact of incomplete sampling. You can read a similar debate between anthropologists here.

It seems like this question is the kind of thing that can be argued over endlessly, in part because the answer depends on how you define your terms. This isn't my field, but to my mind the answer seems to be both yes and no. Yes, humans in a geographic area can share a genetic history leading to genetic differences from other geographic areas, a small part of which is manifested in outward (or skeletal) appearance. So it's obvious that native Scandinavians are different than native Africans. But no, there are not any discrete demarcations that allow firm categorizations (or that determine how many categories there should be), and most differences change gradually over geographic distance. So there's no such thing as a genetically "pure" Scandinavian or African. And of course in today's mobile society everything gets even more confused as formerly geographically isolated people are able to intermingle and have children together.

So it seems to me that to speak of biological races is to use a contextual term of convenience, but it's prone to misunderstanding because for most people races are cultural identifiers (whether they realize it or not). My two cents.

---

Continue reading...

Heartland Institute Heartbreak

The drama unfolding around the release of internal documents of the Heartland Institute (HI) has been interesting, if unfortunate, to watch. In case you've not been following the action, someone posing as a board member of the HI obtained internal documents concerning funding, plans, etc, and anonymously sent them to DeSmogBlog. The HI is probably the most prominent of global warming skeptic "think tanks," and DeSmogBlog covers the corporate attempts to obscure climate issues. We now know that the anonymous poser was climate scientist Peter Gleick, who publicly admitted his role and apologized.

My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts -- often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated -- to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

Gleick's actions are unfortunate for at least two reasons. First, they were arguably unethical and unlawful, but certainly dishonest, and that dishonesty will hurt more than just him. Second, they distract attention from what the HI has been up to (serving as a policy front group for corporate donors, creating an educational curriculum, etc), and may even create a feeling of sympathy for HI among the public.

I'm reminded of Doctrine and Covenants 10:28:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, wo be unto him that lieth to deceive because he supposeth that another lieth to deceive, for such are not exempt from the justice of God.

But I can't help but note the asymmetry here. Gleick's actions have been condemned by Nature and other climate scientists, as well as prompted his resignation from several science organizations. I expect that similar consequences will continue to play out.

Meanwhile, it seems that amongst the climate skeptic community that there is nothing too false or misleading that can't be used to undermine mainstream climate science. Whether taking stolen emails out of context or pushing plainly incorrect information, there just doesn't seem to be any cost for dishonesty, let alone incompetence, amongst climate skeptics.

Sign of the times, I suppose.

---

Continue reading...