This evening I brought my home-made chocolate chip cookies to my Psychology and Religion class. It was partly a sort of an act of penance (which is unusual for me). Last class during a potluck somebody else brought a bunch of fancy organic energy bars. As the guy said he'd spent 20 buck a box on them (he brought in 2 boxes), I took a second, and felt sort of ashamed. I experienced the spotlight effect: the sense that several people noticed I was exceeding the quota of gracious moderation, even though probably nobody did. Yea... it's probably kinda narcissistic or something to imagine they had studied the contents of my earlier feasting. Afterward I processed whether perhaps I deserved the sense of shame and whether I had sinned. I decided I was just being benignly immature. Somehow free food tends to induce in me a sort of... greed? Hmm, that does sound rather sinful. And unfitting, given that I probably get paid a lot more than most people in the class.
Anyway, I decided that on the one hand the gift was freely given without stipulation and not cause for guilt in my acceptance of it. But on the other, my hastiness to accept the generosity of others can result in losing track of my sense of gratitude and thoughtful, healthy proportion, and it would be good for me to grow out of that sort of mindless indulgence.
This week I made the class some chocolate chip cookies, inspired by some obscure mix of generosity, restitution, saving face (over what probably nobody else even noticed) and a way to make myself feel better about myself. And they raved about them! And it wasn't just customary manners, either; I could tell.
I felt about one-fourth immature and three-fourths happy to inform them that the cookies were vegan. I feel America is prejudiced against vegans and our food. Tolerant? Yes. Polite? Usually. Someone did take it upon themselves to make a PETA joke, but I didn't especially mind. Nevertheless, I stereotype them (= most Americans) as stereotyping vegan food as deprivation and vegan people as marred by a strange, even alien irrationality or lack of good sense. It gives me glee to violate these presumptions where possible, especially through acts of generosity. It's almost like that Bible verse about heaping burning coals on enemies' heads through kindness. Except they're not my enemies, and a lot of them have themselves gone out of their way to graciously accommodate my dietary choices, and it's probably a bit more like a heap of spicy tofu.
Yes... Spicy tofu...
Anyway, moving on, I'd like to invite you to help me with a project. Actually, I'd like to invite you to help me with a lot of projects down the road. I'm hoping this blog can offer an opportunity to think think with people (you) as a synergistic collaboration.
But on to the project. For my class in "psychology and religion" (essentially psychology of religion), I'm to write a paper discussing my view on the interrelation of those two subjects. It's also to address:
-what assumptions I have that influence my view on their integration
-what my view about their integration says about the relationship between science and religion
-and how my understanding of their relationship might help me lead a better life or help others.
Here are some initial thoughts. They probably have their flaws-- feel free to point them out. My apologies for vagueness as they crystalize:
*They can each be more appropriate frames for tackling questions in different situations. For example, carrying out a good relationship with God needs to be thought of in personal, unscientific terms. On the other hand, I think scientific research will be more enlightening than Bible study when it comes to mapping and analyzing in detail human thought processes.
*They can inform each other. Imagine if scientists recommended against giving birth on account of the discovery that it's unhealthy -- after all, it's caused a lot of death and medical complications. I wonder if sometimes psychology may similarly make silly suggestions that religious reflection could help with. On the other hand, I'm intrigued by what social psychology has revealed about our techniques of self-deception. And I wonder if there's good material here and in other discoveries that could correct a lot of our theology.
*In some ways, psychology may challenge religion: for example, where there's all sorts of good psychological reasons for being a Christian that have nothing to do with it being true, perhaps belief is cast into question? I'm sure someone will want to pose it in the other direction too. Well, let me know how you think religion challenges psychology.
*I want science and religion to be friends. But I fear religion taking an overbearing "holier than thou" attitude in the relationship, even while watching that science not also overstep with an attitude of being "smarter than thee". I'm not completely comfortable that I can properly keep them from being those ways with each other. Sometimes I wonder whether religion does just trump science or science does just demolish religion.
*Through the lifelong study of psychology and religion that I anticipate, I have hopes that integrating psychological and spiritual insights can synergistically lead to wisdom for understanding and dealing with human nature. Personally, maybe I can provide counsel and guidance for others who deal with doubt and those who deal with them, use new understanding to instigate fresher, deeper productive thought among both Christians and non-Christians, and rattle some religious prejudices along the way.
So, any comments on these nascent notions? Do you have any thoughts to add as I assemble my own?
(note 12/6/10: See my next post for what I came up with!)
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
'Pro-Life' Terrorists
Yesterday evening in my Psychology & Religion class, we watched "Soldiers in the Army of God", a documentary about the folks who bomb abortion clinics and such. It was disturbing to me, but not in quite the same way that I think it disturbs most people.
Something in me tends to vaguely imagine that such abominable acts are perpetrated by hateful, crazy weirdos completely out of touch with reality, people with whom I have very little in common. Maybe that's what some viewers see? It's not what I saw. I could very easily imagine being friends with at least one of these guys. I saw brave idealists with strong consciences, people of compassion who were willing to resist the sedative, conformity-inducing forces of society and make big sacrifices for what they believe in. I saw people whose decisions kind of made sense to me given certain common beliefs they had, by a utilitarian way of thinking. Their stance seems to work by similar logic to how we might justify going to war- minus the sense of legitimacy provided by governments, tradition and the social mainstream: the idea that the killing of killers may be necessary in order to protect innocent life. It's true that there were oddballs and a couple strange ideas. But I like oddballs and their notions. When Paul Hill, who shot and killed an abortion doc and his body guard, described how he felt the days leading up to the shooting-- how he was troubled by the realization of what he thought God would have him do, and his unhappy queasiness leading up to the act, it reminded me of how I felt about a duty to evangelize when I was younger. And in his position, I can easily imagine being, like him, unrepentant to the end, taking joy in facing prison and death. I can identify with his sense of "hearing from God". He expressed all this like a sensible, mild-mannered, friendly neighbor sitting in your living room.
I think I could have been one of them, in different circumstances. I saw a lot of myself in them. I can also imagine being a doctor who performs abortions, who doesn't believe fetuses are people, and is passionate about preserving desperate women's freedom and access to a relatively safe alternative to the coat hanger, proud to risk my life doing so in the face of bigoted bullying and terrorism. These are very different sorts of people, and yet both look villainous from one angle and heroic from another. They're people who act on convictions in the face of hardship and unpopularity.
In class, I vaguely and shyly expressed that I could see myself in their shoes. It's good sometimes to see that I'm not always as bold as I envision myself being when it comes to risking face before the opinions of my peers.
Do you think these terrorists did wrong? Why? How? How do you know?
Can anything be done about them, to avoid this sort of thing coming into existence?
The instructor for this class (who, by the way, is a Christian and attends a Bible church) noted the dualistic worldview of people in the Army of God (common to fundamentalist movements): how everything is black and white, clear, a battle between good and evil. He suggested something to the effect that perhaps psychologists can help people learn to think with a healthy splash of gray.
I'm a big fan of gray. Yet when I read the Bible, I see a lot black and white thinking- at least from some of its authors and heroes-- people like John or David. Is it different with them? Sometimes I get angry at the authors of the Bible, and it influences my interpretation.
How do you respond to all this? Do you have any ideas for mitigating the emergence of this type of radicalism in our society? Does the Bible encourage (or even command) simple, absolutist, polarized thinking? Have I blown a circuit in my common sensometer?
Something in me tends to vaguely imagine that such abominable acts are perpetrated by hateful, crazy weirdos completely out of touch with reality, people with whom I have very little in common. Maybe that's what some viewers see? It's not what I saw. I could very easily imagine being friends with at least one of these guys. I saw brave idealists with strong consciences, people of compassion who were willing to resist the sedative, conformity-inducing forces of society and make big sacrifices for what they believe in. I saw people whose decisions kind of made sense to me given certain common beliefs they had, by a utilitarian way of thinking. Their stance seems to work by similar logic to how we might justify going to war- minus the sense of legitimacy provided by governments, tradition and the social mainstream: the idea that the killing of killers may be necessary in order to protect innocent life. It's true that there were oddballs and a couple strange ideas. But I like oddballs and their notions. When Paul Hill, who shot and killed an abortion doc and his body guard, described how he felt the days leading up to the shooting-- how he was troubled by the realization of what he thought God would have him do, and his unhappy queasiness leading up to the act, it reminded me of how I felt about a duty to evangelize when I was younger. And in his position, I can easily imagine being, like him, unrepentant to the end, taking joy in facing prison and death. I can identify with his sense of "hearing from God". He expressed all this like a sensible, mild-mannered, friendly neighbor sitting in your living room.
I think I could have been one of them, in different circumstances. I saw a lot of myself in them. I can also imagine being a doctor who performs abortions, who doesn't believe fetuses are people, and is passionate about preserving desperate women's freedom and access to a relatively safe alternative to the coat hanger, proud to risk my life doing so in the face of bigoted bullying and terrorism. These are very different sorts of people, and yet both look villainous from one angle and heroic from another. They're people who act on convictions in the face of hardship and unpopularity.
In class, I vaguely and shyly expressed that I could see myself in their shoes. It's good sometimes to see that I'm not always as bold as I envision myself being when it comes to risking face before the opinions of my peers.
Do you think these terrorists did wrong? Why? How? How do you know?
Can anything be done about them, to avoid this sort of thing coming into existence?
The instructor for this class (who, by the way, is a Christian and attends a Bible church) noted the dualistic worldview of people in the Army of God (common to fundamentalist movements): how everything is black and white, clear, a battle between good and evil. He suggested something to the effect that perhaps psychologists can help people learn to think with a healthy splash of gray.
I'm a big fan of gray. Yet when I read the Bible, I see a lot black and white thinking- at least from some of its authors and heroes-- people like John or David. Is it different with them? Sometimes I get angry at the authors of the Bible, and it influences my interpretation.
How do you respond to all this? Do you have any ideas for mitigating the emergence of this type of radicalism in our society? Does the Bible encourage (or even command) simple, absolutist, polarized thinking? Have I blown a circuit in my common sensometer?
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Introductions and Omphaloskepsis
"Hello Blog world" I say awkwardly. It doesn't say anything back. Yet at least. I imagine the behemoth of a great collective continuing to whir and grind, hardly aware that it has acquired a new cell (minion?)... But in time, how will the beast respond? Will it just be the cells who I already know who interact with my page-- making it an extra doohickey for the use of an existing social circle? Or will relatively alien individuals descend out of cyberspace to take notice? If so, what sort of people will they be?
Maybe the beast will relegate me to its appendix or some other obscure compartment or tissue for being part of the "late majority" section of the bell curve on technology matters.
So I struggle with how to present myself and my new creation. Self-presentation can be an interesting game. It involves not only honesty and dishonesty, but also art and skills of perception. It involves understanding one's self, understanding others with their ways of noticing and processing and appraising, understanding cultural and sub-cultural sensibilities, and understanding the way it all fits together. And playing both sides, you find you may learn things about people that they don't seem to notice about themselves by how they play the game, and perhaps wonder in what ways others do the same with you. Then again, it's generally a good bet that an individual will have out-over-thinked you concerning themselves. Maybe they did notice what you noticed, and either intentionally made it appear as if they didn't, or couldn't find a good way around appearing a certain way, or understand it differently, or just don't care enough.
Perhaps some of you can tell that I've been experimenting with online dating sites recently.
Let me indulge in over-thinking a little further. Just now, I dropped a hint to the initiated using the psychology term "self-presentation", that I might bask in the glow of sophistication. But I fear that people who really know their stuff (unlike me) will see pretentious naivety- and maybe the people who don't know their psychobabble will just see pretentiousness. So I'm bringing it into the open and being self-deprecatory to steal everybody's thunder. It's a tactic. Next, I start worrying about all the people who may object to all this very unpragmatic over-thinking. Was the humor enough to placate their judgments? Really, most of you reading this are probably more friendly to me than would warrant such concern. The judgmental pragmatists probably wouldn't have gotten this far anyway. But surely you can resonate that during introductions, and all sorts of social interactions besides, we worry about these sorts of things? I'm not sure whether to feel sinful or simply to warmly smile at my self-absorption. I like the second choice. What do you think?
Moving on, perhaps I should offer some explanation of the title. I came up with it as a title for some spiritual-philosophical-psychological (-navel gazing) reflections I've been writing, and figured it wouldn't be a bad name for a blog either. Plus, nothing else that's good came to mind. Typical of myself as it would be, it might be a mistake to analyze too deeply for you the notions behind the title. But I will say that it means at least a couple different things. Humor me and look up what a gadfly is if you don't already know.
Maybe the beast will relegate me to its appendix or some other obscure compartment or tissue for being part of the "late majority" section of the bell curve on technology matters.
So I struggle with how to present myself and my new creation. Self-presentation can be an interesting game. It involves not only honesty and dishonesty, but also art and skills of perception. It involves understanding one's self, understanding others with their ways of noticing and processing and appraising, understanding cultural and sub-cultural sensibilities, and understanding the way it all fits together. And playing both sides, you find you may learn things about people that they don't seem to notice about themselves by how they play the game, and perhaps wonder in what ways others do the same with you. Then again, it's generally a good bet that an individual will have out-over-thinked you concerning themselves. Maybe they did notice what you noticed, and either intentionally made it appear as if they didn't, or couldn't find a good way around appearing a certain way, or understand it differently, or just don't care enough.
Perhaps some of you can tell that I've been experimenting with online dating sites recently.
Let me indulge in over-thinking a little further. Just now, I dropped a hint to the initiated using the psychology term "self-presentation", that I might bask in the glow of sophistication. But I fear that people who really know their stuff (unlike me) will see pretentious naivety- and maybe the people who don't know their psychobabble will just see pretentiousness. So I'm bringing it into the open and being self-deprecatory to steal everybody's thunder. It's a tactic. Next, I start worrying about all the people who may object to all this very unpragmatic over-thinking. Was the humor enough to placate their judgments? Really, most of you reading this are probably more friendly to me than would warrant such concern. The judgmental pragmatists probably wouldn't have gotten this far anyway. But surely you can resonate that during introductions, and all sorts of social interactions besides, we worry about these sorts of things? I'm not sure whether to feel sinful or simply to warmly smile at my self-absorption. I like the second choice. What do you think?
Moving on, perhaps I should offer some explanation of the title. I came up with it as a title for some spiritual-philosophical-psychological (-navel gazing) reflections I've been writing, and figured it wouldn't be a bad name for a blog either. Plus, nothing else that's good came to mind. Typical of myself as it would be, it might be a mistake to analyze too deeply for you the notions behind the title. But I will say that it means at least a couple different things. Humor me and look up what a gadfly is if you don't already know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)