Miracles have been fundamental to many religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism among many. Miracles have often filled believers with awe and enhanced their faith in their respective God. For the non-believers however, miracles lie among other supernatural phenomena that appear rather dubious. Skeptics think that miracles are impossible and that there are explanations for the events that are attributed as miracles. David Hume is one such skeptic, and he made that clear in his writings notably in Section X of his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, “Of Miracles”. This essay examines his arguments and analyzes his criticisms.
For ease of analysis, we shall first examine Section X in chronological order, point by point. In part one of Section X, Hume starts off by claiming that “our evidence for the truth of the Christian religion is less than the evidence for the truth of our senses”. Here he claims that the testimony of the authors of the Bible is no more believable than our own senses, and that the testimony of the experiences “must diminish in passing from them to their disciples”. Hume then goes on to argue that evidence is more important than experience. Experience he argues, “is apt to lead us into errors”, thus “a wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence”. Furthermore, he argues that the testimony of a “man delirious, or noted for falsehood and villainy, has no manner of authority with us”.
While Hume certainly makes a valid point here, it must be pointed out that it is not what kind of miracle it is, but rather what the significance is. The testimony may or may not have been flawed, but religion is based on teachings and stories, so no matter what; it really is not the validity of the testimonies that are important. If the validity and truth of these stories are to be questioned, then we would have no place for the modern stories that have a good moral behind them.
Moreover, contrary to popular belief of skeptics, religion is not based on miracles. Granted miracles play a big part in the many stories in the Bible, but it is not the miracles that are important. Rather, it is the message that is important. In the wedding in Cana where Jesus turns water into wine, the message is not so much that Jesus can do anything even changing the chemical make-up of liquid but that He is someone who provides, someone who is kind, and so on. Perhaps that act of changing water into wine may not have been a miracle as He could have simply had some of his own wine that He brought in, but these people being men of great faith, may have construed it that way. Still, it does not matter what extra detail as the message is there. God is good, God is merciful, and God will provide.
Next, Hume explains that miracles are only miracles because people exaggerate such that an event “instead of being only marvelous, is really miraculous”. He provides an anecdote of an Indian prince “who refused to believe the effects of frost” although no one in Southern India “could have experience that water did not freeze in cold climates”. However, upon observation that water does indeed go from liquid to “perfect hardness”, it may have struck them with so much awe such that it becomes construed as miraculous.
This may or may not be true and it would be no surprise if it were true for some of the said miracles in the Bible. However, I refer back to my point about these writers being men of great faith, as they would be quick to label something like that as a miracle. Despite that, the miracles that were described were not simple phenomena such as water freezing. Rather, it usually involves healing, or provision of necessary items – the healing of leprosy victims, raising Lazarus from the dead, and feeding thousands with 5 loaves and 2 fishes. So it could not necessarily be due to the witnesses of these miracles not knowing elements of science and nature.
Hume provides his definition of a miracle after a few pages into the section, defining it as “a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined”. It seems Hume was arguing that evidence against miracles lie in the laws of nature. John Earman comments that “if the argument Hume gives for this assertion is correct, then it is irrelevant that the alleged miracle has a divine or supernatural origin”[1].
Hume provides a few examples for that definition before then claiming that:
“no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish; and even in that case there us a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains after deducting the inferior”.
Here it seems Hume is begging the question and is not really providing an argument against miracles. If miracles do not exist, how can the falsehood be more miraculous? Is that then, not a paradox?
In part two of Section X, Hume makes four points that renders miracles improbable. He first argues that no one respectable, with a great reputation to uphold, has ever officially attested to any miracles. Hume seems to be committing the fallacy of argumentum ad authoritarian, as he requires some sort of authority figure to validate the existence of miracles. Still, he does have a good reason to, as being an intellectual, verification is important.
Perhaps there might not have been any authority figure attesting to miracles occurring back in 1748, when Hume wrote his book. However, in the last century, there have been many cases where miracles have been documented and attested by men of reputation and status. For example, one of France’s greatest physicians in the 20th century and Nobel Prize winner for medicine, Alexis Carrel attested to one of miracles that took place at Lourdes[2]. Carrel wanted to see for himself, the reported fast rate of healing of wounds from Lourdes[3]. On the train there on 28th May 1902, he met a girl named Marie Bailly who was suffering from tuberculosis peritonitis[4], a common affliction at the time. Due to her condition, a pitcher-full of Lourdes water was poured onto her abdomen and after about half an hour later, her pulse began to slow and her abdomen had flattened – the abdominal tumor disappeared. Carrel did not admit the experience as he feared it would jeopardize his career, and even wrote an article that blasted the believers for being too gullible. However, he wrote about his experience in a book entitled The Voyage to Lourdes eventually published in 1944. Thus in this case, despite it being almost 200 years late, a respectable and reputable person in Alexis Carrel has attested to the miraculous event. There have perhaps been other such reputable people attesting to miracles, but the Marie Bailly case has been one of the most documented cases of miracles especially in the case of Lourdes.
The second point Hume makes against the existence of miracles was that people believe in miracles because the emotions, the hoo-hah, and the hype that comes from it. As the idea of a miracle is such a positive and perhaps marvelous one, people tend to be more ready to believe it.
From a psychological point of view, Hume certainly makes a good point. After all, it is only natural that human beings want to be associated with something good and something significant. In addition, the social desirability factor – share the same beliefs as others in order to fit in – plays a part in the belief of miracles.
Take the World Cup or Olympics for example – those not interested in sports or competition would suddenly get sucked into the hype surrounding them, and would probably pick a team to support. In similar circumstances, perhaps if a person you may or may not know happens to discover another planet or find proof of aliens or perhaps build a time machine, you would definitely love to find out more and be more ready to believe it. Tabloid news has shown in recent years how believable rumors can be. Hence Hume may be right in this respect.
Hume also elaborates that the kind of people that tell of miracles seem to be people who have nothing better to do, and that “there is no kind of report which rises so easily, and spreads so quickly, especially in country places and provincial towns”. Even a simple event such as marriage between two people would generate such hype, as “the pleasure of telling a piece of news so interesting, of propagating it, and of being the first reporters of it, spreads the intelligence. And this is so well known that no man of sense gives attention to these reports, till he find them confirmed by some greater evidence.” As the reports are so well known, no one bothers to validate them, therefore committing the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.
This leads to Hume’s third point, that “all supernatural and miraculous relations” seem to come from those “among ignorant and barbarous nations; or if a civilized people has ever given admission to any of them, that people will be found to have received them from ignorant and barbarous ancestors, who transmitted them with that inviolable sanction and authority, which always attend received opinions.”
Hume’s second and third points can be taken together such that miracles are believed by people in small, ignorant towns where everybody loves being associated with anything good. There is evidence of such an event especially in the case of the Medjugorje Shrine, in Bosnia, where there are claims that the Virgin Mary has appeared at least 40,000 times[5].
However, in regards to the miracles at Lourdes, there are very strict steps in verifying miracles. In fact, it has been so stringent that many possible miracles might have been dismissed altogether[6][7]. Before a case is verified as a miracle, a medical committee vets through it, before the church verifies it[8][9]. The recognition of a miracle takes years as a result, but there have been about 66 cases[10] documented already that is proof of the existence of miracles.
The fourth point by Hume is that miracles in one religion serve to ‘overthrow’ another religion, such as Christianity overthrowing Islam. An established religion, Hume writes, destroys a rival by destroying the credit of their miracles while showing evidence of their own. He also then claims that people could be been forced to believe in miracles when a conquering power or authority in power instills their religious teachings among the citizens.
Perhaps this may have been true during the crusades. However, in reality miracles do not serve such a purpose. Miracles play a big role in many stories in the Bible, Quran, or Torah. These stories of miracles serve to teach, not to discount other religions.
Hume goes on to claim that:
“It is experience only, which gives authority to human testimony; and it is the same experience, which assures us of the laws of nature. When, therefore, these two kinds of experience are contrary, we have nothing to do but subtract the one from the other, and embrace an opinion, either on one side or the other, with that assurance which arises from the remainder.”
It should not be a choice between testimony and the laws of nature, which Hume claims would lead to “an entire annihilation”. His hyperbole is inadequate, for as it is not as rigid as it seems. After all, even magic goes against the laws of nature in a sense, but it does not cause any annihilation.
Hume then concludes the section by arguing that religion “is founded on Faith, not on reason” and were probably exaggerated or made-up by the “barbarous and ignorant” writers in the Bible.
It is interesting to note how Hume examines our belief in miracles rather than the miracles itself. However, as Hume himself noted, religion is based on Faith, not reason. Just because you may not have seen it for yourself, does not mean it does not exist, the anecdote in appendix 1 shows a creative example. As my parish priest, Father John Rate said, “you cannot make a non-believer believe in miracles, because it is a different context.”[11]
In addition, he says that “miracles are subjective” as fellow priest, Father Tony O’Brien agrees, “context and faith is important, and it depends what people believe miracles are. For I believe miracles happen to me every day.”[12] Most notably, John Locke in A Discourse of Miracles[13] also claims that the definition of miracles varies from person to person.
In conclusion, it is really how someone defines what a miracle is, and what a miracle means to someone. The stories of miracles are meant to teach us things about God. These stories are not meant to make us (believers) expect miracles all the time, as not everyone can win the lottery, recover from cancer, and start to see again. These occasional miracles serve to let believers know that God is still present, and that our faith will be rewarded. Hume may have put some valid points across, but perhaps in his case, there is more to miracles than being stories conjured by barbarous and ignorant people who want to destroy rival religions.
[1] Earman, John. “Hume’s Abject Failure: The argument against miracles.” (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)
[2] Persaud, Raj. Dr. “Where Scientists are looking for God.” 16 Jan 2002: n-pag. On-line. Internet. 1 Oct 2008. Available WWW: http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/Jan2002/MoreOnLourdesMiracleMSCure.html
[3] Jaki, Stanley, L. Rev. “Two Lourdes Miracles and a Nobel Laureate: What really happened?” The Linacre Quarterly. Catholic Medical Association, 1999.
[4] eCureme.com, “Tuberculosis”. 2003: n-pag. On-line. Internet. 1 Oct 2008. Available WWW: http://www.ecureme.com/emyhealth/Pediatrics/Tuberculosis.asp
Tuberculosis peritonitis involves an infection and fluid build-up in the abdomen. It is uncommon in adolescents and rare in children. This is often very difficult to diagnose and is often missed. In addition to build-up of fluid in the abdomen, symptoms may include fever, weight loss, and weakness. Even with testing of the fluid, it is difficult to diagnose and may necessitate laparoscopy to make confirm diagnosis.
[5] Caldwell, Simon. “Pope finally launches crackdown on world’s largest illicit Catholic shrine and suspends ‘dubious’ priest”. Mail Online. 3 Sep 2008: n-pag. On-line. Internet. 1 Oct 2008. Available WWW: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1052230/Pope-finally-launches-crackdown-worlds-largest-illicit-Catholic-shrine-suspends-dubious-priest.html
[6] Chrisafis, Angelique. & Torres, Luc. “Lourdes finds cure for lack of miracles: a less strict definition”. The Guardian. 9 Mar. 2006: n-pag. On-line. Internet. 1 Oct 2008. Available WWW: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/09/france.religion
[7] Campbell, Matthew. “Lourdes lobbies for more miracles”. Times Online: The Sunday Times. 2 Apr. 2006: n-pag. On-line. Internet. 1 Oct 2008. Available WWW: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article701085.ece
[8] Catholic Online. “Doctor who analyzes reported miracles at Lourdes: Interview with Patrick Theillier, Director of Shrine’s medical office”. 23 Aug. 2004: n-pag. On-line. Internet. 1 Oct 2008. Available WWW: http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1252
[9] “The scientific aspect must be distinguished from the spiritual. The cure must exceed the known laws of the illness' evolution, and the person who has experienced the miracle must also recognize the spiritual meaning of the event.
For the cure to be recognized as a miracle, it must fulfill seven criteria. It is necessary to verify the illness, which must be serious, with an irrevocable prognosis. The illness must be organic or caused by injuries. There must be no treatment at the root of the cure. The latter must be sudden and instantaneous.
Finally, the renewal of functions must be total and lasting, without convalescence.”
[10] Jaki, Stanley, L. Rev. “Two Lourdes Miracles and a Nobel Laureate: What really happened?”
[11] Rate, John. Fr. Personal Interview. 5 Oct. 2008.
[12] O’Brien, Tony. Fr. Personal Interview. 5 Oct 2008.
[13] Locke, John. “A Discourse of Miracles”. The Works of John Locke. Vol. 9. (Germany: Scientia Verlag Aalen)
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
What’s persuasive about the Cosmological Argument?
The Cosmological Argument was a hit among the masses and was widely accepted. In fact, it was the basis for the foundation of many religions including Christianity and Islam. There are many reasons why this argument was a very persuasive one.
Firstly, it was a very human concept. It made sense to many in the sense that it managed to put things into perspective. The concept of time for example, was an important factor as it put a beginning and a hypothetical end to the universe. Then of course, the idea that the universe was created was logical as everything in the world had a cause (Aquinas’ argument from motion)[1]. Humans were borne through reproduction; plants emerged from seeds; and rain fell from the clouds. The idea that there was cause and effect throughout time was easy to grasp. The universe is created and from there everything else is created. It made perfect sense.
Secondly, as religion played a major part of the Cosmological Argument, the idea of faith came to light. The idea of a God gave people a sense of purpose and helped explain many things. The Cosmological Argument explains that everything happens for a reason and this perhaps helped many have hope in their lives. Those who were downtrodden and poverty-stricken were given hope that they would get their share of goodness in the afterlife. In the Gospel of Matthew[2], the Beatitudes – 8 blessings for 8 different groups of people and their proposed reward – provide hope for the masses.
I had a discussion with my priest[3] regarding the persuasiveness of the Cosmological Argument and the key word was “purpose”. It is this sense of purpose that gives us life. Imagine if we were to live life without a sense of purpose and without any meaning. Everything has a reason and there are no accidents. Religion teaches that if we lived a good life, we would eventually go to a better place – heaven. So rather than the meaning of life simply being reproduction, there is a sense of purpose – to live a good life and to have eternal life. Aquinas also mentions about the sense of purpose and it is this sense of purpose that makes the Cosmological Argument so convincing.
Thirdly, as the Cosmological Argument was a self-sealer, it was impossible and sometimes illegal to argue against it. However, any form of doubt cast upon the argument would lead to the skeptics being labeled as blasphemers and having a lack of faith. In certain places and eras, non-believers were persecuted as infidels. It is practically impossible to refute or prove the Cosmological Argument. Although the argument was clearly in favor of religion, the other side can easily be argued as convincingly.
Some Objections
Despite the persuasiveness of the Cosmological Argument, many objections can be made, and many questions can be asked.
Firstly, the persuasiveness of the argument has to be questioned as it might not have been persuasive due to the use of argumentum ad baculum. People were forced to believe in it by force with risk of persecution and being condemned to hell in the afterlife. This belief was based on fear and acceptance rather than genuine acceptance of the argument.
Secondly, the Cosmological Argument merely shifts the focus of the argument from the creation of universe to the idea of a God[4]. It may have stopped the occurrence of infinite regression in regards to the universe, but it simply pushes causation back by implying an infinite regress of God. Hence this would therefore spark arguments about the existence and creation of God.
Thirdly, assuming the Cosmological Argument was correct and God was uncaused whereby God’ just was’, then why can the universe not ‘just be’[5]. In other words, as Bertrand Russell said, “why shouldn’t God need a cause when the universe does?” How can God exist ex nihilo? Is it not true that ex nihilo, nihil fit[6]?
Fourthly, the Cosmological Arguments seems to be rather illogical. If something comes into existence from a cause, and something cannot cause itself to exist, then how can God exists? So if all things need a cause to exist, then God himself must by definition require a cause to exist too[7]. How can God create himself?
Fifthly, there is evidence in science as proposed by Stephen Hawking some time back, that matter can suddenly be created out of nothing[8]. However, this is in a quantum vacuum setting, so the cause of this vacuum would then be questioned[9]. Still, this presents a very good argument that if matter can exist out of nothing in such a setting, what about ours?
Lastly, even if there was a first cause, why does it have to be a supreme being? Could the first cause not be some spark that ignited the big bang rather than a God who is omniscient, omnipotent and perfect? At the same time, instead of this one all-powerful God, why could it not be a committee of deities and immortals that created the universe[10]?
Conclusion
In conclusion, the debate about the validity and truth (in terms of persuasiveness) of the Cosmological Argument will never end. It is impossible to validate something that is so intangible unlike science where the scientific method (for the most part) can prove and disprove theories. Hence, as long as there is a need for a sense of purpose or a search for the meaning of life, the persuasiveness of the Cosmological Argument will be stronger. The doubts and skepticism will remain but merely as things to ponder about.
I choose to believe in the Cosmological Argument. I believe that our knowledge is only so limited and while I question the validity of the argument. I will not rule out the absence of necessary knowledge for us to validate the Cosmological Argument. After all, science has been proven wrong many times. We thought the world was flat once, and history certainly repeats itself from time to time[11].
[1] “Things in motion couldn’t have brought themselves into motion, but must be caused to move”
[2] In the Bible (Matthew 5: 3-12), Jesus gave the 8 Beatitudes during the Sermon on the Mount to teach us the way of life in order for us to have eternal life in Heaven.
[3] Rate, John. Personal Interview. 10 Aug. 2008.
[4] Ash, Thomas. “The Case against the Cosmological Argument.” 2001: n.pag. On-line. Internet. 8 Aug 2008. Available WWW: http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/ash-againstcosmological.shtml
[5] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Cosmological Argument.” 16 Sep. 2004: n-pag. On-line. Internet. 8 Aug 2008. Available WWW: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#3.2
[6] Ex nihilo, nihil fit – from nothing, nothing is created
[7] “An argument against the Cosmological Argument.” 27 Mar 2007: n-pag. On-line. Internet. 7 Aug 2008. Available WWW: http://verbis.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/an-argument-aginst-the-cosmological-argument/
[8] Cambridge Encyclopedia (Volume 18). “Cosmological Argument - Origins of the argument, The argument, Counterarguments and objections, Scientific positions.” 2008: n-pag. On-line. Internet. 9 Aug 2008. Available WWW: http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/5101/cosmological-argument.html
[9] Hickok, Josh. “Refuting objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument for God’s existence.” 10 Jan 2005: n-pag. On-line. Internet. 8 Aug 2008. Available WWW: http://www.midwestapologetics.org/articles/godsexistence/refutingobectionstokca.htm
[10] Cline, Austin. “Cosmological Argument: Does order in the Universe prove God exists?” About.com: Agnosticism and Atheism 2008. 2 pp. On-line. Internet. 9 Aug 2008. Available WWW: http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/cosmological.htm
[11] Not in the sense of infinite regress.
Firstly, it was a very human concept. It made sense to many in the sense that it managed to put things into perspective. The concept of time for example, was an important factor as it put a beginning and a hypothetical end to the universe. Then of course, the idea that the universe was created was logical as everything in the world had a cause (Aquinas’ argument from motion)[1]. Humans were borne through reproduction; plants emerged from seeds; and rain fell from the clouds. The idea that there was cause and effect throughout time was easy to grasp. The universe is created and from there everything else is created. It made perfect sense.
Secondly, as religion played a major part of the Cosmological Argument, the idea of faith came to light. The idea of a God gave people a sense of purpose and helped explain many things. The Cosmological Argument explains that everything happens for a reason and this perhaps helped many have hope in their lives. Those who were downtrodden and poverty-stricken were given hope that they would get their share of goodness in the afterlife. In the Gospel of Matthew[2], the Beatitudes – 8 blessings for 8 different groups of people and their proposed reward – provide hope for the masses.
I had a discussion with my priest[3] regarding the persuasiveness of the Cosmological Argument and the key word was “purpose”. It is this sense of purpose that gives us life. Imagine if we were to live life without a sense of purpose and without any meaning. Everything has a reason and there are no accidents. Religion teaches that if we lived a good life, we would eventually go to a better place – heaven. So rather than the meaning of life simply being reproduction, there is a sense of purpose – to live a good life and to have eternal life. Aquinas also mentions about the sense of purpose and it is this sense of purpose that makes the Cosmological Argument so convincing.
Thirdly, as the Cosmological Argument was a self-sealer, it was impossible and sometimes illegal to argue against it. However, any form of doubt cast upon the argument would lead to the skeptics being labeled as blasphemers and having a lack of faith. In certain places and eras, non-believers were persecuted as infidels. It is practically impossible to refute or prove the Cosmological Argument. Although the argument was clearly in favor of religion, the other side can easily be argued as convincingly.
Some Objections
Despite the persuasiveness of the Cosmological Argument, many objections can be made, and many questions can be asked.
Firstly, the persuasiveness of the argument has to be questioned as it might not have been persuasive due to the use of argumentum ad baculum. People were forced to believe in it by force with risk of persecution and being condemned to hell in the afterlife. This belief was based on fear and acceptance rather than genuine acceptance of the argument.
Secondly, the Cosmological Argument merely shifts the focus of the argument from the creation of universe to the idea of a God[4]. It may have stopped the occurrence of infinite regression in regards to the universe, but it simply pushes causation back by implying an infinite regress of God. Hence this would therefore spark arguments about the existence and creation of God.
Thirdly, assuming the Cosmological Argument was correct and God was uncaused whereby God’ just was’, then why can the universe not ‘just be’[5]. In other words, as Bertrand Russell said, “why shouldn’t God need a cause when the universe does?” How can God exist ex nihilo? Is it not true that ex nihilo, nihil fit[6]?
Fourthly, the Cosmological Arguments seems to be rather illogical. If something comes into existence from a cause, and something cannot cause itself to exist, then how can God exists? So if all things need a cause to exist, then God himself must by definition require a cause to exist too[7]. How can God create himself?
Fifthly, there is evidence in science as proposed by Stephen Hawking some time back, that matter can suddenly be created out of nothing[8]. However, this is in a quantum vacuum setting, so the cause of this vacuum would then be questioned[9]. Still, this presents a very good argument that if matter can exist out of nothing in such a setting, what about ours?
Lastly, even if there was a first cause, why does it have to be a supreme being? Could the first cause not be some spark that ignited the big bang rather than a God who is omniscient, omnipotent and perfect? At the same time, instead of this one all-powerful God, why could it not be a committee of deities and immortals that created the universe[10]?
Conclusion
In conclusion, the debate about the validity and truth (in terms of persuasiveness) of the Cosmological Argument will never end. It is impossible to validate something that is so intangible unlike science where the scientific method (for the most part) can prove and disprove theories. Hence, as long as there is a need for a sense of purpose or a search for the meaning of life, the persuasiveness of the Cosmological Argument will be stronger. The doubts and skepticism will remain but merely as things to ponder about.
I choose to believe in the Cosmological Argument. I believe that our knowledge is only so limited and while I question the validity of the argument. I will not rule out the absence of necessary knowledge for us to validate the Cosmological Argument. After all, science has been proven wrong many times. We thought the world was flat once, and history certainly repeats itself from time to time[11].
[1] “Things in motion couldn’t have brought themselves into motion, but must be caused to move”
[2] In the Bible (Matthew 5: 3-12), Jesus gave the 8 Beatitudes during the Sermon on the Mount to teach us the way of life in order for us to have eternal life in Heaven.
[3] Rate, John. Personal Interview. 10 Aug. 2008.
[4] Ash, Thomas. “The Case against the Cosmological Argument.” 2001: n.pag. On-line. Internet. 8 Aug 2008. Available WWW: http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/ash-againstcosmological.shtml
[5] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Cosmological Argument.” 16 Sep. 2004: n-pag. On-line. Internet. 8 Aug 2008. Available WWW: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#3.2
[6] Ex nihilo, nihil fit – from nothing, nothing is created
[7] “An argument against the Cosmological Argument.” 27 Mar 2007: n-pag. On-line. Internet. 7 Aug 2008. Available WWW: http://verbis.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/an-argument-aginst-the-cosmological-argument/
[8] Cambridge Encyclopedia (Volume 18). “Cosmological Argument - Origins of the argument, The argument, Counterarguments and objections, Scientific positions.” 2008: n-pag. On-line. Internet. 9 Aug 2008. Available WWW: http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/5101/cosmological-argument.html
[9] Hickok, Josh. “Refuting objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument for God’s existence.” 10 Jan 2005: n-pag. On-line. Internet. 8 Aug 2008. Available WWW: http://www.midwestapologetics.org/articles/godsexistence/refutingobectionstokca.htm
[10] Cline, Austin. “Cosmological Argument: Does order in the Universe prove God exists?” About.com: Agnosticism and Atheism 2008. 2 pp. On-line. Internet. 9 Aug 2008. Available WWW: http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/cosmological.htm
[11] Not in the sense of infinite regress.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Religion & Science - Can 2 Truths exist?
One of the main questions posed to us in my philosophy seminar was whether religious truth can co-exist with other truths - scientific truth, biological truth, historical truth, etc. It was quite annoying at first as people were struggling to define truth. We broke up into groups and we defined it as belief. In the end, inevitably and unsurprisingly, we were unable to reach a consensus.
Raj claimed that they could co-exist as there are many professionals who believe in evolution but yet regularly go to church every sunday. Jess argued against it as she claimed that you can never really have both beliefs as you'd have a constant internal inconsistency. Sean just sat there trying to figure out how to define truth (dumb fuck).
While I felt that it would be logically incorrect to have both beliefs as Jess argued, I agreed with Raj to a certain extent. I posited that it would be possible to have both beliefs, except that the person would be more inclined towards one side, while on the other hand, the person could simply be keeping his options open. On my former argument, I argued that it is possible to integrate religion and science (or other beliefs/truths for that matter). My integrationist argument was that sometimes it could be down to the little factors such as semantics. For example, David Hume claimed that there were no miracles as it was down to knowledge or lack of thereof that led people in the past to believe in miracles. Back then, it was impossible to do certain things. Sometimes it could be down to figurative language. In the Bible, when it mentioned that Moses managed to lose the soldiers in the Red Sea, it was mentioned somewhere that the Red Sea was really a Reed Sea, where the chariots and heavy armor of the soldier impeded their advance. The soldiers lost them because they went through the reeds which opened and closed - exactly as the bible had mentioned.
Of course, this does not mean that I do not believe in God. I do believe in God and I will continue to praise him. Faith is not irrational. Science holds its stance that it is the holder of truth as it has consistently proved things. However, it has also had many theories proven wrong. The Geocentric theory was believed to be true for a long time until the Heliocentric theory came about. In addition, there are a great many mysteries that cannot be explained by science, and until someone can produce something so concrete and a non-self-sealing argument, I refuse to believe otherwise.
Let me bring to light something I got in an email. I find it quite appropriate.
'Let me explain the problem science has with Jesus Christ.' The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.
'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'
'Yes sir,' the student says.
'So you believe in God?'
'Absolutely.'
'Is God good?'
'Sure! God's good.'
'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'
'Yes.'
'Are you good or evil?'
'The Bible says I'm evil.'
The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a moment.
'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'
'Yes sir, I would.'
'So you're good...!'
'I wouldn't say that.'
'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?'
The student remains silent.
'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.
'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'
'Er...yes,' the student says.
'Is Satan good?'
The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'
'Then where does Satan come from?'
The student replies, 'From...God..'
'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'
'Yes, sir.'
'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'
'Yes.'
'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'
Without allowing the student to answer, the professor continues: 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'
The student: 'Yes.'
'So who created them?'
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them? There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.
'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'
The student's voice is confident: 'Yes, professor, I do.'
The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'
'No sir. I've never seen Him.'
'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'
'No, sir, I have not.'
'Have you ever actually felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelled your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'
'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'
'Yet you still believe in him?'
'Yes.'
'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'
'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'
'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of his own. 'Professor, is there such a thing as heat?'
'Yes,' the professor replies. 'There's heat.'
'And is there such a thing as cold?'
'Yes, son, there's cold too.'
'No sir, there isn't.'
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.
'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest-458 degrees. Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.
'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'
'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'
'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'
'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'
The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'
'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.'
'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'
'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'
'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.
'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'
The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.
'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelled the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir. So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.
Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess you'll have to take them on faith.'
'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'
Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'
To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God.
God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'
The professor sat down.
So there is my argument about 2 truths and the existence of God.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Good Masses
What makes a good mass? If you're a regular church-goer like me, you've definitely had your fair share There are several factors that make a mass good. Let me first list them out before elaborating further on each factor.
- Interesting and charismatic priest
- Good, lively choir
- Familiar songs
- Going with the right people
- Good weather
1: Interesting and Charismatic Priest
A priest leads the mass. He is by default, the leader of the church. He is the main conductor of the mass. If he speaks slowly and monotonously, mass would be utterly boring. Yes, granted a mass is supposed to be a solemn event/ritual. However, it is a different scenario nowadays. I'm not saying a solemn mass is boring, as it can be really good despite the monotony. It's just that, the monotony in that situation is appropriate.
I'm a church-hopper and I've attended many masses in many different churches in a variety of countries. I've been to churches in New Zealand, Australia, China, and Singapore, just to name a few. In addition, I've attended masses in rural areas as well as those in the main city area. And there is without a doubt, a profound importance of a priest's quality. I can't emphasize this enough.
One of the best masses I've been to was in Sydney on Palm Sunday in 2007. The weather was pleasant and the mass was in St. Marys cathedral. It was a huge affair with the cardinal and bishop all celebrating it. The guest priest was this American Franciscan friar who was extremely capturing and charismatic. His sermon was like what you'd see on tv where the celebrant walks up and down asking people to just shout out and praise the Lord.
2. Good, lively choir
Other than the priest, the choir is the next important part of the mass. Without music, mass would be an incredibly drab affair. I've personally attended many masses that had plenty of people and no music at all. The masses were always short, but I'd leave every time, feeling unfulfilled.
A choir usually dictates the mood of a mass. Choirs are easy to find, but good choirs do not always come by easily. A good choir lifts the spirits of the parishioners, fills the church with song, and fulfils every one spiritually. It would leave you wishing the mass would go on and on, and then eventually leaving with a smile on your face and a sense of warmth in your heart.
3. Familiar Songs
One of the things that used to annoy me when I attended mass was when the choir sang songs that were completely alien to me. There are times when the church is full and there are no song sheets/books to go around. When that happens, it is very difficult to follow a song. Some churches actually have an overhead projector to help those without song sheets/books to follow, but the unfamiliarity of songs still inhibit proper singing.
I personally love getting involved in the mass. When I attend mass, I want to praise God, I want to sing out loud. Thus, when I am not allowed to do that, I'd feel extremely annoyed. It would spoil my mood for the whole day for I would be deprived of the spiritual fulfilment that I seek due to the fact that I wasnt able to praise God the way I wanted.
New songs are good, but old songs are always a gem. You need a mix of the old and the new. Not everything new is good. So if choir masters could all just remember that, mass would be a much more enjoyable affair.
4. Going with the right people
Going to mass alone isn't the worst thing in the world, and on the contrary, could be a much more fulfilling affair. However, it's always nice going with other people. Sometimes, when those you go with are equally as enthusiastic as you, it rubs off. Trust me, it's a really good feeling.
I'd really say more about this, but it's really just hard to explain without being very long-winded. It's basically the influence and the proximity of the other people. Go with the right people, and you'll know what I mean.
5. Good weather
Don't you hate it when you attend a very lively mass and it's raining heavily outside? I mean you're all happy and fuzzy inside only to step out and see the place to gloomy. Then for the not-so-fortunate ones who have to take public transport or walk home or to wherever they're going after mass, they'll face getting wet. Even those who drive might get wet.
Ever notice you feel much happier when a mass is good, and then you walk out to nice weather? Enough said.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Fundamental Attribution Error changes over time: Why we should stop and think before we act.
As soon as we enter the world we start making judgments. Initially it may be as trivial as judging who your caregiver is. Subsequently it progresses to a more social context where you make judgments about your friends. At a more mature level, while the existing judgments are retained, more abstract judgments come into the fold, with political stances and other relevant decision-making events.
The most common judgments that we make however, is judgment of behavior. These behavioral judgments include not just the every day behavior of friends and family, but also includes rationalizing why leaders raise prices, why people commit acts of terrorism, why countries go to war, and much more. In making such judgments, we sometimes make mistakes.
The Fundamental Attribution Error
The Fundamental Attribution Error is a bias in judgment where we attribute causes of behavior to the person or actor rather than the situation (Samuels & Casebeer, 2005). In other words, we attribute behavior to internal, dispositional factors instead of external, situational factors (Tal-or & Papirman, 2007). An example of a situation where the Fundamental Attribution Error may occur is when a friend turns up late for an appointment with you and you proceed to admonish him for being irresponsible and selfish, when he actually left early but was involved in an accident on the way, where he had to fill out a witness testimony, and was late as a result.
In terms of culture, it has often been found that Western, individualistic cultures tend to ignore the situation and blame or credit the person (Ross & Shestowsky, 2003), while Eastern, collectivist cultures are the converse and tend to look at the situational factors instead (Miller, 1984). However, with the cultural blending around the world, the line between collectivist and individualist cultures is fast becoming blurred.
There have long been many publicized real world events that show the Fundamental Attribution Error being committed. For example, the Nazi concentration camp guards were often depicted as merciless, cruel, and evil, despite them merely carrying out orders. It is interesting how we are actually able to describe this depiction as an error of judgment now, and this would be shared by the Nazi concentration camp survivors too. This is because despite the immediate hatred among such sentiments towards these guards by those who were subject to torture by them, the external explanations have gradually been accepted over time.
Previous Research
This effect has been studied by researchers over the years, as they have found that the Fundamental Attribution Error disappears or diminishes over time (Burger, 1991; Burger & Pavelich, 1994; Funder & Van Ness, 1983; Jones, Riggs & Quattrone, 1979; Moore, Sherrod, Liu & Underwood, 1979; Truchot, Maure & Patte, 2003). In other words, your initial judgment about the person rather than about the situation, tends to diminish over time where it becomes forgotten or less salient.
In a classic study by Jones and Harris (1967), participants watched a video of a persuasive speech on gun control. They were split into two groups – the “no choice” group where they told that the speaker had no choice over which side to take, and the “choice” group where they were told that the speaker had a choice on which side to take. It was further broken down into two conditions where participants were to make inferences about the speaker’s feelings about the topic either immediately after watching or after 7 days. It was found that participants who were asked to infer immediately, inferred that the speaker’s feelings were congruent with the speech content even in the “no choice” group. Furthermore, it was found that this Fundamental Attribution Error diminished significantly in the delayed condition.
Similarly, in study by Ross, Amabile and Steinmetz (1977) and replicated by Burger (1991), participants were assigned contestant or questioner roles. Immediately after the experiment, contestants attributed the difficulty of the questions to the questioners’ superior knowledge. However, when asked again 3 to 4 days later, this attribution had diminished and was less pronounced if at all.
In a more on-the-ground study by Truchot et al (2003), firemen were asked about verbal or physical attacks that they had experienced before. It was found that attributions were initially internal but more external later on as they reflected on the incident. It was also found that the firemen blamed the attacker more in more recent attacks compared to earlier attacks. These studies may have been conducted in a controlled environment but there have been many real world cases where the Fundamental Attribution Error changes over time.
Although the Fundamental Attribution Error generally does change over time, it does not always happen. Attribution changes over time depending on severity. When the relevance of an act increases, the perceiver will be more likely to make more extreme inferences (Truchot et al, 2003). A severe negative relevant act towards the perceiver will be received with an internal attribution that is less likely to fade or fades slower if at all, than a neutral act.
Application to the Real World
On April 16, 2007 Cho Seung-hui opened fire on students at Virginia Tech, killing 32 before shooting himself (Hauser & O’Connor, 2007). Immediately, as it was an act by an individual, the blame was internal and on the person (A tribute to those who passed at the Virginia Tech shooting, 2008). However, after examining and investigating the incident further by a review panel, situational factors were found (Virginia Tech Review Panel, 2008). In addition to that, people were more willing to accept that it wasn’t completely internal, dispositional factors that led to the massacre (Du, 2008, Guestbook for Virginia Tech Shooting Victims, 2008) with mention of depression, autism (Veale, 2008) among several mental problems cited along with problems with the gun laws in the United States.
This real world example shows that despite the initial internal dispositions, the elapsed time allowed people to search for external, situational factors that led to this tragedy. Although it certainly did not make this tragedy any less significant, it enabled the general public to understand the full implications of this incident. Instead if widespread prejudice or a backlash aimed at Koreans, measures were being taken to strengthen security and amend gun laws.
In regards to severity of the Fundamental Attribution Error, the shooting was of severe negative relevance for those involved directly – friends and family of the victims. It remains unclear whether they still harbor the same internal, dispositional attributions as they did slightly more than a year ago. However, there has been evidence to suggest that some friends have indeed showed a diminished effect of the Fundamental Attribution Error (A tribute to those who passed at the Virginia Tech shooting, 2008; Guestbook for Virginia Tech Shooting Victims, 2008).
On the 29th of November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly called for the establishment of the state of Israel. When the state of Israel was fully established on 14th May, 1948 it was condemned by the Arabs and invaded the next day by 5 Arab states – Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2008). Although most of us accept Israel as a country, there are still many who do not. We perceive it as a neutral event as we are not directly affected, but for the Arabs who feel that their land had been taken away, it is perceived as a negative relevant event. This event is salient to them. Thus, their internal, dispositional view of the event will probably never change and it is unlikely that they will consider the situational factors.
How does it affect us?
The implication of the diminishing Fundamental Attribution Error on real life situations is in relationships. Starting from a large scale, world leaders could be less quick to resort to hostile measures upon his perception that his counterpart had offended him. The constant, well-publicized arguments between leaders in Malaysia and Singapore for example stems from a long-standing rivalry and offensive comments. Perhaps if they were to look at it from a more external, situational point of view, such arguments which have been championed by former leaders could be eradicated or quelled to a certain extent.
On a smaller scale, it affects our relationships in the sense that there would be fewer divorces in the world. It is estimated that about fifty percent of marriages in the United States, forty eight percent in Canada, and forty percent in Australia will end in divorce. In contrast, it is estimated that twenty seven percent of marriages in Japan, one percent in India, and ten percent in Singapore (Divorce Rate.org, 2008). On many occasions it is due to the internal attributions towards the spouse. So, with the knowledge that the Fundamental Attribution Error does indeed diminish over time, couples can take some time to think about the situational factors before automatically adopting an internal, dispositional opinion against each other.
In conclusion, it is important not to have the Fundamental Attribution Error bias in our judgments and decision making. It is essential that the situational factors be considered too. However, despite the fact that we sometimes cannot help make internal, dispositional judgments, it has been shown by research that these judgmental biases usually fade over time. Still, in the event where something is so salient but not necessarily negative as above-mentioned, the Fundamental Attribution Error bias tends to remain relatively constant. The knowledge of how the Fundamental Attribution Error plays a part in our lives is very useful and if the notion is properly grasped, unpleasant things in life can be avoided.
Reference
A tribute to those who passed at the virginia tech shooting. (2008). Retrieved May 25, 2008 from http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2305046635
Burger, J. M. (1991). Changes in attribution over time: The ephemeral fundamental attribution error. Social Cognition, 9, 182-193.
Burger, J. M., & Pavelich, J. L. (1994). Attributions for presidential elections: The situational shift over time. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 359-371.
Divorce Rate.org. (2008). Retrieved May 26, 2008 from http://www.divorcerate.org/
Du, G. (2008). One year after virginia tech shooting, much still to be done. Xinhua News Agency. Retrieved May 25, 2008 from http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/17/content_7994996.htm
Funder, D. C. & Van Ness, M. J. (1983). On the nature and accuracy of attributions that change over time. Journal of Personality, 51 (1), 17-33.
Guestbook for Virginia Tech Shooting Victims. (2008). Retrieved May 25, 2008 from http://www.legacy.com/GB/GuestbookView.aspx?PersonId=87298850
Hauser, C. & O’Connor, A. (2007). Virginia tech shooting leaves 33 dead. The New York Times. Retrieved May 25, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/us/16cnd-shooting.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2008). Retrieved May 27, 2008 from http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/History/Facts+about+Israel-+History.htm
Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 1-24
Jones, E. E., Riggs, J. M., & Quattrone, G. (1979). Observer bias in the attitude attribution paradigm: Effect of time and information order. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(7), 1230-1238.
Miller, J. G. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 961-978.
Moore, B. S., Sherrod, D. R., Liu, T. J., & Underwood, B. (1979). The dispositional shift in attribution over time. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15 (6), 553-569.
Ross, L. D., Amabile, T. M., & Steinmetz, J. L. (1977). Social roles, social control, and biases in social perception processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 485-494.
Ross, L. & Shestowsky, D. (2003). Contemporary psychology’s challenges to legal theory and practice. Northwestern University Law Review, 97 (3), 1081-1114.
Samuels, S. M. & Casebeer, W. D. (2005). A social psychological view of morality: Why knowledge of situational influences on behaviour can improve character development practices. Journal of Moral Education, 34 (1), 73-87.
Tal-Or, N. & Papirman, Y. (2007). The fundamental attribution error in attributing fictional figures' characteristics to the actors. Media Psychology. 9(2), 331-345.
Truchot, D., Maure, G., & Patte, S. (2003). Do attributions change over time when the actor’s behavior is hedonically relevant to the perceiver? The Journal of Social Psychology, 143 (2), 202-208.
Veale, J. (2008). A family’s shame in korea. Time. Retrieved May 25, 2008 from http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1613417,00.html
Virginia Tech Review Panel. (2008). Report of the virginia tech review panel. Office of the Governor Timothy M. Kaine. Retrieved May 25, 2008 from http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/techPanelReport.cfm
The most common judgments that we make however, is judgment of behavior. These behavioral judgments include not just the every day behavior of friends and family, but also includes rationalizing why leaders raise prices, why people commit acts of terrorism, why countries go to war, and much more. In making such judgments, we sometimes make mistakes.
The Fundamental Attribution Error
The Fundamental Attribution Error is a bias in judgment where we attribute causes of behavior to the person or actor rather than the situation (Samuels & Casebeer, 2005). In other words, we attribute behavior to internal, dispositional factors instead of external, situational factors (Tal-or & Papirman, 2007). An example of a situation where the Fundamental Attribution Error may occur is when a friend turns up late for an appointment with you and you proceed to admonish him for being irresponsible and selfish, when he actually left early but was involved in an accident on the way, where he had to fill out a witness testimony, and was late as a result.
In terms of culture, it has often been found that Western, individualistic cultures tend to ignore the situation and blame or credit the person (Ross & Shestowsky, 2003), while Eastern, collectivist cultures are the converse and tend to look at the situational factors instead (Miller, 1984). However, with the cultural blending around the world, the line between collectivist and individualist cultures is fast becoming blurred.
There have long been many publicized real world events that show the Fundamental Attribution Error being committed. For example, the Nazi concentration camp guards were often depicted as merciless, cruel, and evil, despite them merely carrying out orders. It is interesting how we are actually able to describe this depiction as an error of judgment now, and this would be shared by the Nazi concentration camp survivors too. This is because despite the immediate hatred among such sentiments towards these guards by those who were subject to torture by them, the external explanations have gradually been accepted over time.
Previous Research
This effect has been studied by researchers over the years, as they have found that the Fundamental Attribution Error disappears or diminishes over time (Burger, 1991; Burger & Pavelich, 1994; Funder & Van Ness, 1983; Jones, Riggs & Quattrone, 1979; Moore, Sherrod, Liu & Underwood, 1979; Truchot, Maure & Patte, 2003). In other words, your initial judgment about the person rather than about the situation, tends to diminish over time where it becomes forgotten or less salient.
In a classic study by Jones and Harris (1967), participants watched a video of a persuasive speech on gun control. They were split into two groups – the “no choice” group where they told that the speaker had no choice over which side to take, and the “choice” group where they were told that the speaker had a choice on which side to take. It was further broken down into two conditions where participants were to make inferences about the speaker’s feelings about the topic either immediately after watching or after 7 days. It was found that participants who were asked to infer immediately, inferred that the speaker’s feelings were congruent with the speech content even in the “no choice” group. Furthermore, it was found that this Fundamental Attribution Error diminished significantly in the delayed condition.
Similarly, in study by Ross, Amabile and Steinmetz (1977) and replicated by Burger (1991), participants were assigned contestant or questioner roles. Immediately after the experiment, contestants attributed the difficulty of the questions to the questioners’ superior knowledge. However, when asked again 3 to 4 days later, this attribution had diminished and was less pronounced if at all.
In a more on-the-ground study by Truchot et al (2003), firemen were asked about verbal or physical attacks that they had experienced before. It was found that attributions were initially internal but more external later on as they reflected on the incident. It was also found that the firemen blamed the attacker more in more recent attacks compared to earlier attacks. These studies may have been conducted in a controlled environment but there have been many real world cases where the Fundamental Attribution Error changes over time.
Although the Fundamental Attribution Error generally does change over time, it does not always happen. Attribution changes over time depending on severity. When the relevance of an act increases, the perceiver will be more likely to make more extreme inferences (Truchot et al, 2003). A severe negative relevant act towards the perceiver will be received with an internal attribution that is less likely to fade or fades slower if at all, than a neutral act.
Application to the Real World
On April 16, 2007 Cho Seung-hui opened fire on students at Virginia Tech, killing 32 before shooting himself (Hauser & O’Connor, 2007). Immediately, as it was an act by an individual, the blame was internal and on the person (A tribute to those who passed at the Virginia Tech shooting, 2008). However, after examining and investigating the incident further by a review panel, situational factors were found (Virginia Tech Review Panel, 2008). In addition to that, people were more willing to accept that it wasn’t completely internal, dispositional factors that led to the massacre (Du, 2008, Guestbook for Virginia Tech Shooting Victims, 2008) with mention of depression, autism (Veale, 2008) among several mental problems cited along with problems with the gun laws in the United States.
This real world example shows that despite the initial internal dispositions, the elapsed time allowed people to search for external, situational factors that led to this tragedy. Although it certainly did not make this tragedy any less significant, it enabled the general public to understand the full implications of this incident. Instead if widespread prejudice or a backlash aimed at Koreans, measures were being taken to strengthen security and amend gun laws.
In regards to severity of the Fundamental Attribution Error, the shooting was of severe negative relevance for those involved directly – friends and family of the victims. It remains unclear whether they still harbor the same internal, dispositional attributions as they did slightly more than a year ago. However, there has been evidence to suggest that some friends have indeed showed a diminished effect of the Fundamental Attribution Error (A tribute to those who passed at the Virginia Tech shooting, 2008; Guestbook for Virginia Tech Shooting Victims, 2008).
On the 29th of November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly called for the establishment of the state of Israel. When the state of Israel was fully established on 14th May, 1948 it was condemned by the Arabs and invaded the next day by 5 Arab states – Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2008). Although most of us accept Israel as a country, there are still many who do not. We perceive it as a neutral event as we are not directly affected, but for the Arabs who feel that their land had been taken away, it is perceived as a negative relevant event. This event is salient to them. Thus, their internal, dispositional view of the event will probably never change and it is unlikely that they will consider the situational factors.
How does it affect us?
The implication of the diminishing Fundamental Attribution Error on real life situations is in relationships. Starting from a large scale, world leaders could be less quick to resort to hostile measures upon his perception that his counterpart had offended him. The constant, well-publicized arguments between leaders in Malaysia and Singapore for example stems from a long-standing rivalry and offensive comments. Perhaps if they were to look at it from a more external, situational point of view, such arguments which have been championed by former leaders could be eradicated or quelled to a certain extent.
On a smaller scale, it affects our relationships in the sense that there would be fewer divorces in the world. It is estimated that about fifty percent of marriages in the United States, forty eight percent in Canada, and forty percent in Australia will end in divorce. In contrast, it is estimated that twenty seven percent of marriages in Japan, one percent in India, and ten percent in Singapore (Divorce Rate.org, 2008). On many occasions it is due to the internal attributions towards the spouse. So, with the knowledge that the Fundamental Attribution Error does indeed diminish over time, couples can take some time to think about the situational factors before automatically adopting an internal, dispositional opinion against each other.
In conclusion, it is important not to have the Fundamental Attribution Error bias in our judgments and decision making. It is essential that the situational factors be considered too. However, despite the fact that we sometimes cannot help make internal, dispositional judgments, it has been shown by research that these judgmental biases usually fade over time. Still, in the event where something is so salient but not necessarily negative as above-mentioned, the Fundamental Attribution Error bias tends to remain relatively constant. The knowledge of how the Fundamental Attribution Error plays a part in our lives is very useful and if the notion is properly grasped, unpleasant things in life can be avoided.
Reference
A tribute to those who passed at the virginia tech shooting. (2008). Retrieved May 25, 2008 from http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2305046635
Burger, J. M. (1991). Changes in attribution over time: The ephemeral fundamental attribution error. Social Cognition, 9, 182-193.
Burger, J. M., & Pavelich, J. L. (1994). Attributions for presidential elections: The situational shift over time. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 359-371.
Divorce Rate.org. (2008). Retrieved May 26, 2008 from http://www.divorcerate.org/
Du, G. (2008). One year after virginia tech shooting, much still to be done. Xinhua News Agency. Retrieved May 25, 2008 from http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/17/content_7994996.htm
Funder, D. C. & Van Ness, M. J. (1983). On the nature and accuracy of attributions that change over time. Journal of Personality, 51 (1), 17-33.
Guestbook for Virginia Tech Shooting Victims. (2008). Retrieved May 25, 2008 from http://www.legacy.com/GB/GuestbookView.aspx?PersonId=87298850
Hauser, C. & O’Connor, A. (2007). Virginia tech shooting leaves 33 dead. The New York Times. Retrieved May 25, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/us/16cnd-shooting.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2008). Retrieved May 27, 2008 from http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/History/Facts+about+Israel-+History.htm
Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 1-24
Jones, E. E., Riggs, J. M., & Quattrone, G. (1979). Observer bias in the attitude attribution paradigm: Effect of time and information order. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(7), 1230-1238.
Miller, J. G. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 961-978.
Moore, B. S., Sherrod, D. R., Liu, T. J., & Underwood, B. (1979). The dispositional shift in attribution over time. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15 (6), 553-569.
Ross, L. D., Amabile, T. M., & Steinmetz, J. L. (1977). Social roles, social control, and biases in social perception processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 485-494.
Ross, L. & Shestowsky, D. (2003). Contemporary psychology’s challenges to legal theory and practice. Northwestern University Law Review, 97 (3), 1081-1114.
Samuels, S. M. & Casebeer, W. D. (2005). A social psychological view of morality: Why knowledge of situational influences on behaviour can improve character development practices. Journal of Moral Education, 34 (1), 73-87.
Tal-Or, N. & Papirman, Y. (2007). The fundamental attribution error in attributing fictional figures' characteristics to the actors. Media Psychology. 9(2), 331-345.
Truchot, D., Maure, G., & Patte, S. (2003). Do attributions change over time when the actor’s behavior is hedonically relevant to the perceiver? The Journal of Social Psychology, 143 (2), 202-208.
Veale, J. (2008). A family’s shame in korea. Time. Retrieved May 25, 2008 from http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1613417,00.html
Virginia Tech Review Panel. (2008). Report of the virginia tech review panel. Office of the Governor Timothy M. Kaine. Retrieved May 25, 2008 from http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/techPanelReport.cfm
Monday, June 09, 2008
The Problem with the Church
Screaming Babies, Ringing phones and Hyperactive kids
Besides the fact that the church is far too commercialized these days, I think the other problems that they face are during the mass itself. I go to church because I want to pray and I want to be able to concentrate. I want to be able to be one with God. Now how am I going to be able to do that with so many distractions? Irresponsible and inconsiderate people are the number one cause for this deficiency. These people are sinners! Why are they sinners? Well, by not controlling their children and by not ensuring that their phones are set to silent, they are depriving many people of fulfilling one of the commandments - keep holy on the sabbath day. It is far worse than violating any of the commandments itself. It is equivalent to violating the commandment at least 50 times, or more depending on the number of parishioners.
I feel that the church should address this more, and emphasize it. How can we be deprived of adhering to one of the commandments and being a good Catholic?
Hillsongs, Youth Groups and City Harvest
Another problem with the church these days is the many youth groups or denominations that are springing up. I mean, the intention is definitely good. They want to praise God, they want to be good people. Fair enough. However, what they are doing wrong is their extreme evangelism and commercializing. Hill Songs for example. Yes, they are good because they provide praise and worship. But their intentions are wrong. Do you know how many CDs, DVDs, posters, and other marketable things they have sold? Do you know how much revenue that brings in? This should not be the way.
Then there are the youth groups nowadays that are honestly a bit radical. Usually, it's because of one of the leaders who everyone commits the fallacy of authority. They believe whatever this person says because they believe that this person is wise beyond all of them. I've personally known some to actually bring up ridiculous ideas like how Harry Potter is evil and that none of the group members should read it or be deemed satanic. What nonsense!
The biggest and perhaps most infamous example is City Harvest. They are nice people in general and I personally know quite a number of them. However, they are a cult! I mean what God-loving/fearing Christian group would tell people that they would go to hell if they did not go to church? That is not the way! You guilt people into attending your services, and you brain wash everyone with your ideas. I mean some of the values may be good such as donating money to help the poor, but to implant ideas such as giving 10% of your salary to charity is quite hypocritical. Why stipulate a percentage or a number when donating does not constitute numbers? Donations are something that you give out of the goodness of your heart. Then have you seen their services? A big hall in expo for services? Whatever happened to the good old-fashioned worship? I mean sure, you can pray anywhere, but with their church getting so much money to build a nice church somewhere in the west and to pay for the expo rental, you can only imagine how rich they are. I don't have evidence, but I'm pretty sure it's quite obvious their funds are not going to the poor as much as they should be.
These youth groups and hillsongs are pervasions to Christianity. The extremism and radical thinking is fast becoming comparable to those of the extreme Islamic cults. Is a crusade on the books now? There are so many hypocrites out there and there are so many gullible people. If you follow these groups blindly, you will end up blind. You will resist and attack any attempt to enlighten you about your plight and you will only deteriorate to the point of no return.
With that said, the Roman Catholic Church is the true Christian church. Other denominations are known as protestants who broke off from the church in the first place. So those Christians who think they know it all, please read up on your history and stop criticizing us for being traditional. We never broke away from God in the first place. I don't mean this to offend Christians out there. You are all good people. I meant this for those hypocrites and perverts of Christianity. If you are Christian, I welcome you with open arms. However, that doesn't mean I cast away the other religions. I don't care if you're Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, Muslim or Taoist. As long as you have good morals and values, you are my brother (or sister). Those whose values are misguided, I will guide you. But if you are on the dark side, sometimes it is too late - you are lost. Still, I will not give up on you.
Besides the fact that the church is far too commercialized these days, I think the other problems that they face are during the mass itself. I go to church because I want to pray and I want to be able to concentrate. I want to be able to be one with God. Now how am I going to be able to do that with so many distractions? Irresponsible and inconsiderate people are the number one cause for this deficiency. These people are sinners! Why are they sinners? Well, by not controlling their children and by not ensuring that their phones are set to silent, they are depriving many people of fulfilling one of the commandments - keep holy on the sabbath day. It is far worse than violating any of the commandments itself. It is equivalent to violating the commandment at least 50 times, or more depending on the number of parishioners.
I feel that the church should address this more, and emphasize it. How can we be deprived of adhering to one of the commandments and being a good Catholic?
Hillsongs, Youth Groups and City Harvest
Another problem with the church these days is the many youth groups or denominations that are springing up. I mean, the intention is definitely good. They want to praise God, they want to be good people. Fair enough. However, what they are doing wrong is their extreme evangelism and commercializing. Hill Songs for example. Yes, they are good because they provide praise and worship. But their intentions are wrong. Do you know how many CDs, DVDs, posters, and other marketable things they have sold? Do you know how much revenue that brings in? This should not be the way.
Then there are the youth groups nowadays that are honestly a bit radical. Usually, it's because of one of the leaders who everyone commits the fallacy of authority. They believe whatever this person says because they believe that this person is wise beyond all of them. I've personally known some to actually bring up ridiculous ideas like how Harry Potter is evil and that none of the group members should read it or be deemed satanic. What nonsense!
The biggest and perhaps most infamous example is City Harvest. They are nice people in general and I personally know quite a number of them. However, they are a cult! I mean what God-loving/fearing Christian group would tell people that they would go to hell if they did not go to church? That is not the way! You guilt people into attending your services, and you brain wash everyone with your ideas. I mean some of the values may be good such as donating money to help the poor, but to implant ideas such as giving 10% of your salary to charity is quite hypocritical. Why stipulate a percentage or a number when donating does not constitute numbers? Donations are something that you give out of the goodness of your heart. Then have you seen their services? A big hall in expo for services? Whatever happened to the good old-fashioned worship? I mean sure, you can pray anywhere, but with their church getting so much money to build a nice church somewhere in the west and to pay for the expo rental, you can only imagine how rich they are. I don't have evidence, but I'm pretty sure it's quite obvious their funds are not going to the poor as much as they should be.
These youth groups and hillsongs are pervasions to Christianity. The extremism and radical thinking is fast becoming comparable to those of the extreme Islamic cults. Is a crusade on the books now? There are so many hypocrites out there and there are so many gullible people. If you follow these groups blindly, you will end up blind. You will resist and attack any attempt to enlighten you about your plight and you will only deteriorate to the point of no return.
With that said, the Roman Catholic Church is the true Christian church. Other denominations are known as protestants who broke off from the church in the first place. So those Christians who think they know it all, please read up on your history and stop criticizing us for being traditional. We never broke away from God in the first place. I don't mean this to offend Christians out there. You are all good people. I meant this for those hypocrites and perverts of Christianity. If you are Christian, I welcome you with open arms. However, that doesn't mean I cast away the other religions. I don't care if you're Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, Muslim or Taoist. As long as you have good morals and values, you are my brother (or sister). Those whose values are misguided, I will guide you. But if you are on the dark side, sometimes it is too late - you are lost. Still, I will not give up on you.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Retail Therapy
I was browsing through some blogs just now instead of doing my assignment when I came across a particular entry which just stimulated my mind a little. It’s the sort of entry where you read and go, “hey, that’s quite true” and you think how it applies to you.
That entry was about the subject of retail therapy. I’ve can’t say I’ve been a supporter or dissenter of this concept as I’ve been rather ambivalent about it. As long as it works for me, I’ve been a supporter. When I criticized others for their thoughtless purchases, I’ve spoken out against it. So I did a search on google, which the exact words ‘retail therapy definition’ and got the following definitions:
In Urban Dictionary, it was defined as:
1. The act of shopping as an outlet for frustration and a reliever of stress.
2. An excuse for people, mostly female, to go shopping when they're feeling bad, when in reality their bad feelings could be released/treated in other ways.
This clearly agrees with my ambivalence about this concept, as contributors to the definition on this site clearly can’t agree on a single definition.
The in the trusty Wikipedia, it was defined it as:
“Shopping with the primary purpose of improving the buyer's mood or disposition.” Often seen in people during periods of depression or transition, it is normally a short-lived habit. Items purchased during periods of retail therapy are sometimes referred to as "comfort buys."
It was more straight-forward in msn Encarta, as it was defined simply as “shopping for fun”.
These two definitions only mean that retail therapy is more positively skewed towards the beneficial side of the fence. Retail therapy must be a good thing then? But isn’t it because those who contributed are biased in that sense? Or perhaps they’re just using the definition based on observation on their material-dependent friends and acquaintances.
So what exactly is my take on retail therapy then? Quite contrary to popular belief, I actually believe that there might be some usefulness to retail therapy. Sure, it may have its negatives such as time-wasting and financial problems due to buying essentially unnecessary items, but it might actually really prove to be therapeutic.
Retail therapy allows us to go out, rather than staying cooped up at home ruminating in melancholy. Being distracted definitely helps liven up the mood up and allows us to forget about our troubles momentarily. In addition, it is always a nice feeling when you acquire something novel. You get yourself all excited about this new purchase that it temporary alleviates the pain you’ve been going through.
In a study by a team of researchers from Carnegie Mellon, Harvard, Stanford and the University of Pittsburgh, participants were first shown either a video clip that showed grief following a tragic death or a neutral clip from a nature show. Then they had the chance to purchase an ordinary item - a sporty water bottle for example. It was found that people who were shown the sad video clip offered an average of 300% more money for the item than those who had viewed the neutral clip.
This shows that people are more willing to spend when they’re in a sad mood. The study also found that when people are sad, there tends to be a lot of emphasis on the self. The sad person tends to have a high level of self-focus. Hence, it explains why, apart from the thrill of owning something new, that retail therapy works.
With the emergence of the internet and particularly online shopping in the past decade, we can simply purchase items off the internet in a few clicks.
However, I’m quite puzzled as to how this might actually work. I know the technicalities of purchasing items online but I am unsure about the aesthetics of it. Sure, there may be some form of excitement in purchasing online, but it is miniscule compared to physically going down to the shops for your therapy session. You only get to see pictures online and perhaps get better prices, but would it not feel better if you could physically touch the items? You could get answers to your questions instantly, and you get to see other items that might be on sale.
I bought a camera online recently, and I just didn’t have the same feeling I usually get after purchasing something. Perhaps it’s also partly because I purchased the item, yet I didn’t have it yet. I had to wait for a week or more before I finally received my buy.
Although it was almost like Christmas morning, with the item arriving in a package that I ripped open, the excitement wasn’t really as intense as I’d hoped.
I think I would have felt happier had I physically made my way to the shop to purchase it. There, I would’ve been able to look at other cameras, compare them, and be contented that I had definitely chosen the best of the lot.
So this leads me to the next question, “how can it really be retail therapy if you shop online?” If and/or when I become a Psychologist upon graduation, do I give my clients therapy via msn messenger? I charge them slightly less, and I could do multiple chats at a go, but is that the same thing?
That entry was about the subject of retail therapy. I’ve can’t say I’ve been a supporter or dissenter of this concept as I’ve been rather ambivalent about it. As long as it works for me, I’ve been a supporter. When I criticized others for their thoughtless purchases, I’ve spoken out against it. So I did a search on google, which the exact words ‘retail therapy definition’ and got the following definitions:
In Urban Dictionary, it was defined as:
1. The act of shopping as an outlet for frustration and a reliever of stress.
2. An excuse for people, mostly female, to go shopping when they're feeling bad, when in reality their bad feelings could be released/treated in other ways.
This clearly agrees with my ambivalence about this concept, as contributors to the definition on this site clearly can’t agree on a single definition.
The in the trusty Wikipedia, it was defined it as:
“Shopping with the primary purpose of improving the buyer's mood or disposition.” Often seen in people during periods of depression or transition, it is normally a short-lived habit. Items purchased during periods of retail therapy are sometimes referred to as "comfort buys."
It was more straight-forward in msn Encarta, as it was defined simply as “shopping for fun”.
These two definitions only mean that retail therapy is more positively skewed towards the beneficial side of the fence. Retail therapy must be a good thing then? But isn’t it because those who contributed are biased in that sense? Or perhaps they’re just using the definition based on observation on their material-dependent friends and acquaintances.
So what exactly is my take on retail therapy then? Quite contrary to popular belief, I actually believe that there might be some usefulness to retail therapy. Sure, it may have its negatives such as time-wasting and financial problems due to buying essentially unnecessary items, but it might actually really prove to be therapeutic.
Retail therapy allows us to go out, rather than staying cooped up at home ruminating in melancholy. Being distracted definitely helps liven up the mood up and allows us to forget about our troubles momentarily. In addition, it is always a nice feeling when you acquire something novel. You get yourself all excited about this new purchase that it temporary alleviates the pain you’ve been going through.
In a study by a team of researchers from Carnegie Mellon, Harvard, Stanford and the University of Pittsburgh, participants were first shown either a video clip that showed grief following a tragic death or a neutral clip from a nature show. Then they had the chance to purchase an ordinary item - a sporty water bottle for example. It was found that people who were shown the sad video clip offered an average of 300% more money for the item than those who had viewed the neutral clip.
This shows that people are more willing to spend when they’re in a sad mood. The study also found that when people are sad, there tends to be a lot of emphasis on the self. The sad person tends to have a high level of self-focus. Hence, it explains why, apart from the thrill of owning something new, that retail therapy works.
With the emergence of the internet and particularly online shopping in the past decade, we can simply purchase items off the internet in a few clicks.
However, I’m quite puzzled as to how this might actually work. I know the technicalities of purchasing items online but I am unsure about the aesthetics of it. Sure, there may be some form of excitement in purchasing online, but it is miniscule compared to physically going down to the shops for your therapy session. You only get to see pictures online and perhaps get better prices, but would it not feel better if you could physically touch the items? You could get answers to your questions instantly, and you get to see other items that might be on sale.
I bought a camera online recently, and I just didn’t have the same feeling I usually get after purchasing something. Perhaps it’s also partly because I purchased the item, yet I didn’t have it yet. I had to wait for a week or more before I finally received my buy.
Although it was almost like Christmas morning, with the item arriving in a package that I ripped open, the excitement wasn’t really as intense as I’d hoped.
I think I would have felt happier had I physically made my way to the shop to purchase it. There, I would’ve been able to look at other cameras, compare them, and be contented that I had definitely chosen the best of the lot.
So this leads me to the next question, “how can it really be retail therapy if you shop online?” If and/or when I become a Psychologist upon graduation, do I give my clients therapy via msn messenger? I charge them slightly less, and I could do multiple chats at a go, but is that the same thing?
