I've Changed My Mind (again)

I get a sense that "changing your mind" about something is seen today as a negative trait to have. Perhaps it started with the mocking of John Kerry as a "flip flopper" or perhaps the belief that someone who changes his or her mind frequently cannot be trusted has roots going back much further.

Frankly, I find that view quite puzzling - especially in today's information-rich world. Psychology teaches us that we're constantly forming judgments based on the information we have access to. As more information comes in, we are forced to change those judgments (of course, there is enough evidence that these judgments are resistant to change and the marginal impact of new information on judgments is smaller than if it was the first piece presented, but that is unnecessarily complicating for the point I'm trying to make). Since we are bombarded with so much information, and since that information is presented in condensed "sound-bite" form, I assume that most people form ealry judgments with the expectation that it could change as more information becomes available. But, I'm getting the feeling that "sticking to your guns" and staying with principles is instead seen as a more appropriate response.

Contrary to what you may believe, this has nothing to do with our current political situation. A friend recently warned me (again) that posting opinions on a blog is dangerous and will come back to bite me if I express a "non-politically-correct" opinion here. This warning hit me on several levels. First, it scares me that there really are people who think that freely expressing opinions in this country can get them in deep trouble. Second, he rejected my response that "these are just opinions based on the information I had at the time." He insisted that people are held to always believe things that they may have expressed at any point in their lives. While I must consider the fact that he may be right, I still struggle to understand this.

Perhaps it is my mental make up that focuses on evidence-based reasoning that I am always expecting to change my opinions when more convincing evidence presents itself. That is also probably why I get along well with people generally. I never hold anything against people in the long run. If you're nasty to me one moment and then do something nice the next time we interact, I am much more willing to shift my judgments of people to the favorable side than others. I find it difficult to hold grudges over the long run.

On the other hand, it could be that this expression of a willingness to change opinions is just a normal defense mechanism to prevent from ever being held accountable for what i say and write. But then again, maybe not!

God, Morality, & Science

My local newspaper today had a letter to the editor from a local priest who argued that the "history of the Catholic church is a record of great love ..." (!!) and that "No God means no moral norms ..." For some reason, people regularly assume that the biggest benefit of a belief in God is the creation of a moral center in all of us sinning beings. This brought to mind an excellent session I saw at the Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason & Survival conference in 2006 that is completely available for viewing on the web. I haven't watched the video of all the sessions, but found the time to watch the first one (watch it here). It was absolutely fascinating to hear presentations by Steven Weinberg, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, and Michael Shermer about the conflict between Science, Reason and God. They all ultimately believe the same thing, but had quite differing viewpoints on how strongly we should oppose a belief in God. One argued that because science is based on reason and evidence-based inference, it is not compatible with a belief in God. They reiterated the important point that a lack of belief in God is NOT the same as a belief in no God - an important distinction that many fail to see.

Anyway, one key point made by Sam Harris (I think) was that scientists (and believers in reason) need to reclaim the right to "morality." They argue that there is no evidence that believers are any more moral than non-believers. In fact, there is evidence to the opposite. People from countries with increasingly secular worldviews and less belief in God tend to do more for the poor and be more generous in terms of charitable giving (such as the Scandinavian countries). I firmly believe that belief in God (or lack of it) has no bearing on an individual's morality, decency or generosity. How do we eliminate this faulty perception that Godless people are immoral?

To me, the highlight of the video was a quote attributed to Steven Weinberg that now hangs on my office wall: "Science does not make it impossible to believe in God. It makes not believing in God possible." Exactly!