Overestimating Incompetency

In Theology class today, we talked about addiction as attachment to things, ideas or habits that are less than love of God. We settle for loving finite things rather than the infinite, because to love God takes great risk and requires tremendous vulnerability that we simply won't do it.

Even as we try to fulfill our utmost desire, to love and be love, the vulnerability it requires leaves us open to pain, and to avoid hurting we protect ourselves by trusting in the little things.

I remembered this class discussion as I read this article on Salon.com that talks about overestimating our intelligence when in fact we're incompetent, and those who are competent tend to think everyone else is, too:

"People who lack the knowledge or wisdom to perform well are often unaware of this fact. That is, the same incompetence that leads them to make wrong choices also deprives them of the savvy necessary to recognize competence, be it their own or anyone else's."

The converse also bears repeating.... In short, smart people tend to believe that everyone else "gets it." Incompetent people display both an increasing tendency to overestimate their cognitive abilities and a belief that they are smarter than the majority of those demonstrably sharper.

Let us pray for humility, the beginning of all wisdom... and competency.

Meaning of the Gospel

Today in my New Testament: Paul class, we discussed what is meant by the various references to "gospel" in the NT. Gospel, in greek, is "euhangellion," which is generally translated as "tidings of joy." But to know exactly what joy we're speaking of, we add "Gospel of" ... Jesus Christ, God, etc., or "Gospel according to" ... Matthew, Mark, Luke and George. (Of course it's John, but if four accounts, then why not more? less?)

As many a professor and pastor have professed to me, and I concur, it is a good thing we have four accounts or vantage points. (I'd still like to see that movie, Vantage Point, despite the reviews.) This leaves us room for interpretation, treating the text more as literary rather than as literal. In this way, we are not disrespecting the bible but, in fact, are taking it most seriously - in all its multiple meanings and application. For a text to be great, it needs to make allusions and references that have many meanings, and point to a truth beyond itself (see Shakespeare, Greek Tragedy, etc.). The same goes with the Bible.

So what is "gospel"? Or what do we mean by "gospel"? Is it entirely focused on the life & resurrection of Jesus Christ? Would the gospel be true without the resurrection? (for Paul, probably no; he emphasizes death and resurrection heavily, especially in Galations) Is it only a matter of opinion, to a varying degree?

I think it’s more than that – perhaps we need to deconstruct what we mean in order to reconstruct another’s meaning… we assume too much that what we’re talking about or what we mean mean is what the other person is talking about… or means.

As my former roommate put it quite humorously, "I said what I meant. In fact, I meant what I said." If only we knew what he meant... or said.

What does the Gospel mean to you?

Security Crisis & the Reign of God

Amidst these past few years of national security crises, and this past week of financial upheaval and insecurity, I can't help but think:

All we need is a little more love in this world.

With love comes trust, and when we begin to trust again - ourselves, our neighbors, even eventually our enemies or those we disagree with - we will no longer need to find security in our wealth, our nation, our ill-conceived wars or military might. We will find security and solace in the One who first loved us, and continues to love us, and will never stop loving us.

As many a theologian rightly asserts, God's economy is not based on scarcity, but on abundance. In a world of abundance, we will not simply live sustainably, but in perfect harmony. Others call it the Reign of God.

How are you bringing about the Reign of God today?
Rephrased:
How have you loved or trusted someone today?

Obama on Foreign Policy Issues

I felt compelled to write this for some relatives of mine, outlining my beliefs with regards to Obama and foreign policy experience. After reading this, watch the foreign policy debate on Friday, Sept. 26th and decide for yourself who would be better at handling foreign affairs as our next president. I've tried to document all of my statements from a variety of news and information sources.

Summary: In respect to foreign policy initiatives, Obama has been ahead of national opinion, and both McCain and the Bush administration, in suggesting deft and bold strategies to address national security in a comprehensive manner. Namely, he stated the Iraq War was a bad idea from the beginning, supports attacking Al-Queda bases in Pakistan, supports the effort in Afghanistan, suggests direct talks with Iran, and advocates a timetable for withdrawal. ALL OF THESE POSITIONS are now supported to some degree by the Bush Admin. and McCain, even after they ridiculed him for months, if not years. This is a man with vision who is keen and able to stick to his overarching beliefs even as he makes on-his-feet decisions based on solid intelligence and information. After being misled for 8 years, I look forward to being led by this man into a more peaceful world and stable economy.

1. IRAQ WAR - Obama was against the Iraq war from the beginning, and now most Americans think the Iraq war was a bad idea. He's not against all wars, just rash and dumb ones, and argues convincingly that this war is a distraction to the real issues that face Americans everyday. Read his Oct 2002 speech here; it's rather short and VERY powerful. Meanwhile, Bush and McCain played up the war drums with information now unequivocally proven as false. This previous link also details how McCain has changed his tune on Iraq, from being completely in line with the Bush Strategy/Doctrine to now trying to differentiate himself.

To me, this fact shows Obama has profound judgment on military matters (no matter the intelligence) and is a solid student of history. He takes it seriously when we send young men and women to the battlefield to kill.

2. PAKISTAN - Obama was the first propose US counterattacks into Pakistan over a year ago (Aug. 2007), reiterating the fact that Al-Queada and their Taliban supporters orchestrated the Sept. 11th attacks and they are the real threat to America. In Feb. 2008, McCain blasted Obama for suggesting bombing our ally, Pakistan, when Obama was saying we needed to attack the Al-Queda bases if the intelligence is good, not just bomb indiscriminately. Bush also criticized Obama for threatening to attack Pakistan. Even so, the Bush Administration was attacking Pakistani targets without the Pakistani government's permission then, six months after Obama advocated for it, and now it's an openly acknowledged fact. Here is a good summary of this ongoing debate. Granted, Bush did say the US would attack Al-Queada targets in Pakistan in 2006, but later ridiculed Obama for saying the same thing in Feb 2008 during the campaign season.

To me, this fact shows Obama has surrounded himself with keen policy advisors and has access to little-known information, and will weather politcal attacks for what he knows is the right thing to do. This also is the beginning of the duplicity we now see that's so apparent in the McCain campaign.

3. AFGHANISTAN - Obama's been criticizing the bombing raids and calling for more troops in Afghanistan for at least a year. Obama has taken the issue of Afghanistan seriously since 2002, when he gave his address on the Iraq War. That same year, McCain said catching bid-Laden wasn't "that important" and in 2003, that the US can just "muddle through in Afghanistan". After years of Obama touting the need for focus on the war in Afghanistan, McCain now seems to agree on a surge there.

To me, this fact shows Obama is focused on making the US safer by intently and hotly pursuing those perpetrators of Sept. 11th, and not straining our military or distracting our focus with a misguided war in Iraq.

4. IRAN & SYRIA - Obama has stated for over a year and a half that he would engage Iran (and Syria) diplomatically. Bush and McCain both laughed at this idea, saying we can't negotiate with terrorists, even though Obama also says we don't negotiate with terrorists. In May 2006, after everyone had come to agree that talks with Iran were necessary, Bush agreed to indirect talks with Iran. Even Kissenger now agrees direct talks with Iran are necessary, "without conditions"! The only ones holding out on pursuing this avenue for peace are Bush and McCain.

To me, this fact shows Obama is willing to use all means, and especially put diplomacy first, to ensure we have a stable world order and prevent our enemies from threatening us or our allies. It also shows me that Obama's opinion is held by the majority of foreign policy experts and advisors.

5. "THE SURGE" - First, I should let Obama outline his plan for Iraq himself and address the surge issue, as he did in July 2008 in the New York Times. The surge has now allowed a limited drawdown of US troops in Iraq, and freed up these forces to now serve in Afghanistan. While violence was reduced, Maliki did not list increased troop levels as a factor to bringing calm to Iraq. Furthermore, most of the benchmarks for Iraq have not been met, the primary reason for the surge as stated by Bush; British withdrew from Basra, leaving peace; and the "surge" level is the same as the troop levels in Dec. 2005. Read more here. Hopefully now with the relative calm in violence, Iraqi politicians can now make political progress - and we should hold them accountable by gviing a time table.

To me, this fact shows Obama is willing to acknowledge the success of his rival's plans, ideas he disagreed with, to now use this success to further his own plans of moving us out of Iraq. He is a practical politician who fight's for what is right (ending the occupation) no matter how we get (out of) there. Withdrawing from Iraq is still the goal, but it will be undertaken with care and deference to good military commanders like Petraeus.

6. TIMETABLE - We know Obama has been advocating for a withdrawal timetable since Jan 2007 (a full year and a half ago). Never has anyone wanted to see us leave in defeat, which I define as another state supporting terrorism against us. Obama-Biden's plan states that while there will be no permanent bases in Iraq, a residual force will remain to protect vital national security concerns. Read their entire plan here. Yet now the Iraqi government is calling for a timetable, even citing Obama's proposal as a good guideline, and the Bush Admin. is even showing signs of agreement as of August! Even McCain thinks the timetable, or the Republican euphemism "horizons for withdrawal," is a good idea, praising Obama's proposal, even thought he thinks getting our troops home is "not too important". As Iraq's President Maliki himself stated, “Who[ever] wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”

To me, this fact shows Obama knows what it takes to stick it out with a politically unpopular decision, only later, after weathering the ridicule and questioning of experience, to see his plans vindicated.

Competing Moralities? Republicans & Democrats

In an essay, "What makes people vote Republican?" (I encourage reading the article in full - quite enlightening - but a breif summary follows), Professor of Moral Psychology at UVA Jonathan Haidt argues (convincingly) there are various ways of describing morality that can be divided into five various spectra, or what he calls "psychological systems":
1. harm/care
2. fairness/reciprocity
3. ingroup/loyalty (from tribalism)
4. authority/respect (from hierarchy/ordering society)
5. purity/sanctity (carnality=degrading, renunciating=noble)

The first two trace their roots to John Stuart Mill, who is one of my favorite writers and wrote a definitive work on liberalism: On Liberty. These two emphasize an individual's rights and implores people to voluntarily join the organization. Those who lean liberal (Democrats) tend to focus on these two moral spectra at the exclusion of numbers 3-5.

The final three, in contrast, use not the individual as the basic organizing principle, but the family or other small social unit. This line of thought traces its root to Emile Durkheim, and "A Durkheimian society would value self-control over self-expression, duty over rights, and loyalty to one's groups over concerns for outgroups."

Those who lean conservative (Republicans) tend to hold all five spectra/systems in their morality beliefs. Few in American would disagree with the first two morality spectra, but the final three may seem archaic or too traditional for modern-day liberals. However, for liberals to fully understand why people vote Republican, they must understand all five spectra of morality.

Prof. Haidt suggests ways the Democrats could do this: in loyalty, emphasizing diversity in unity by fighting racism, sexism and other phobias; in authority, personal responsibility and costs for not joining a group; and in purity, emphasizing the environment and condemning materialism.

There is no silver bullet, but understanding this framework will help both sides understand each other better... and realize we're all on the same human spectrum.

***Afterthoughts***

So then, are morals just social constructions passed down to us by the traditions of society? Some would argue this. Other would argue the Bible to be our guide, others tradition, others reason... and still others experience. These are the four pillars of theological argument (Scripture, tradition, reason & experience), and various pillars can be emphasized to bolster or tear down an argument.

I tend to lean towards Kant's categorical imperatives. He believes in a universal morality where you only will what you would want others to will, treating every human being as an end rather than a means and acting as if we all were legislating members.

Sounds a lot like Jesus' summary of scripture, aka the Golden Rule.

The Subtle Knife

I just finished Book II of the trilogy, His Dark Materials, by Philip Pullman, entitled The Subtle Knife. I enjoyed but was not very impressed by the first one, The Golden Compass, and also heard the movie wasn't very good. The second book, however, is wonderful. The first one set the stage for a wonderful world, and the second takes it a runs away with the ideas and concepts and characters (similar to the first and second Matrix movies). I highly recommend it to anyone interested in a fantasy-exploration of original sin and the question of "What is consciousness?"

I also found this quote most interesting:

"I found folly everywhere, but there were grains of wisdom in every stream of it. No doubt there was much more wisdom that I failed to recognize. Life is hard, Mr. Scoresby, but we cling to it all the same." (281)

This line of thinking falls well into my trial-by-error philosophy, similar to the "trial-and-error" method used by many. Inevitably we will come up short in our endeavors, as we reach the limits of ourselves or others. Yet even in the shortcomings were are graced with nuggets of knowledge that help illumine our minds.

And the other related thought is also important: Indeed, life is hard, yet it's all we have. So cling to it - it's a choice we make every day.

As I'm reminded in the film The Dead Poet's Society, Carpe Diem!

Have you seized the day today?