Live Forever or Die Tomorrow?

I read a short passage from "Zorba the Greek" by Nikos Kazantzakis that has provoked some thought for me. In it, Zorba comes along an old man who is planting a tree. He questions the old man about why he would plant a tree when he will never see it produce fruit. The old man responds, "I live as if I am going to live forever." Zorba enjoys this thought, as he mutters to himself, "I live as if I will die tomorrow."

What a contrast in perspectives. But which leads us to a full and prosperous life? Haven't we all heard that we should live as if we will die tomorrow? Isn't that the lesson we feel we must take away any time we attend a funeral? Sure, living as if we could die tomorrow has some benefits. We may treasure our relationships more and give to worthy causes. Yet, what about the constant fear? I am not sure I want to live a life worrying that the value of my life depends on having everything in order when I die.

The old man suggests another way. Now, living as if we will never die has some dangers. If we live in ignorance of death, we run the risk of taking unnecessary risks to our health. We all know we should visit the doctor, wear our seatbelts, and avoid dangerous activities. But what if believing we will never die could mean more than that? What if living forever meant that we devoted ourselves to larger causes, tasks that may take a long time to complete?

The Christian believes they will live forever, through the grace of God. The faithful do not live in fear of death but in hope for the redemption of all creation. They do not sit back and watch but participate in this work of salvation.

What are your perspectives?

Truth and Beliefs

Truth is the accurate and complete perception of reality, including and transcending a variety of perspectives and beliefs. Truth is not a constructed reality but simply exists, without relation to subjectivity. Yet subjective knowledge, including beliefs, can have a varying reflection upon truth. The psychology of religion typically gives little mention to beliefs and, when it does, relegates belief to "merely" subjective experience, without attending to whether beliefs are true (Vergote, 1993).

Cognitive psychology has taken a greater interest in this question by looking at how beliefs develop and change. The research in that field has pointed out that beliefs can be formed independent of rational discourse and accurate perception that would be consistent with a search for truth (Begg, Anas, & Farinacci, 1992; Gilbert, 1991; Hasher, Goldstein, & Toppino, 1977; Ladowsky-Brooks & Alcock, 2007). Instead, beliefs are formed through mechanisms that can introduce error, such as repetition, reputation of the source, and consistency with prior memories. Although this provides a quick and efficient means of information gathering, the drawback is that beliefs are not always representative of truth (Begg, Anas, & Farinacci, 1992). In fact, people are directly affected by all sources of information, whether they be factually true or false, and the inherent process is to accept all information as true before comparing to prior experiences and evaluating the source (Gilbert, 1991). Beliefs are therefore subjective rather than objective.

Does this mean that beliefs can never be true or that truth does not matter for beliefs? On the contrary, the truth of beliefs becomes of the utmost importance when a false belief causes an unwanted problem. Cognitive-behavioral therapy addresses the emotional consequences of false beliefs by teaching the client to rationally judge their beliefs, rather than allowing false beliefs to continue to have a destructive effect on their lives. The need for such therapy reflects how difficult it can be for people to become aware of and challenge their false beliefs. While psychology cannot determine whether beliefs about transcendent realities, such as God, are true, there is the possibility that the factors that contribute to these beliefs can be unveiled and evaluated.

What does all this have to do with religion? Well, religion is fundamentally about beliefs (Froese & Bader, 2007). These beliefs are presumed to be true. Yet if beliefs can be formed in a manner that allows for error, how can we be sure of our religious beliefs? Sociological research has shown us that beliefs about God are shaped by socioeconomic status, suggesting that beliefs are merely constructed out of experiences that have little to do with a personal knowledge of God (Froese & Bader, 2007). However, religion has retained its explanatory power as a belief system despite thousands of years of hard experiences that have tested the limits of these beliefs. Although theology has changed alongside the times, the shortcomings of these new perspectives generally become evident in time. In other words, theology's truth can be tested with experience. Cognitive-behavioral therapy has been effective because the flawed thinking of depressed or anxious individuals has proven to be too weak for rational evaluation. Religion has not yet experienced an equivalent rational retort.

Religion evaluates truth in a variety of ways: through scripture, reason, religious tradition, personal experience, with some even integrating science (Brown, 2004). By these methods, religion tests beliefs for truth. These are all methods for evaluating religious beliefs that can help discern truth for the religious individual. Religion therefore has a more stringent test of the truth of beliefs that most other institutions and individuals.

Begg, I., Anas, A., & Farinacci, S. (1992). Dissociation of processes in belief: Source recollection, statement familiarity, and the illusion of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 446-458.
Brown, W. (2004). Resonance: A Model for Relating Science, Psychology, and Faith. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 23, 110-120.
Gilbert, D. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46, 107-119.
Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977). Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16, 107-112.
Ladowsky-Brooks, R., & Alcock, J. (2007). Semantic-episodic interactions in the neuropsychology of disbelief. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 12, 97-111.
Preston, J., & Epley, N. (2005). Explanations Versus Applications: The Explanatory Power of Valuable Beliefs. Psychological Science, 16, 826-832.
Unkelbach, C. (2007). Reversing the truth effect: Learning the interpretation of processing fluency in judgments of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 219-230.
Vergote, A. (1993). What the psychology of religion is and what it is not. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 3, 73-86.

Christian Camps and Our Youth

I'm writing up my master's thesis right now and thought I would share a few of my findings. I'll try not to get into the details and really paint the broad picture of what I found. My thesis is on two main topics: understanding the changes that occur when youth attend Christian camps and understanding the mechanisms and interconnections of adolescent spirituality. I might decide to blog on the second topic but for now I will stick to what effect attendance at a Christian camp had on adolescent spirituality.

First off, I should note my methods. We gave questionnaires to campers at two Christian camps (confidentiality prevents me from saying which ones), half receiving the questionnaire at the beginning and half at the end. We looked at the differences in spirituality between these two groups, inferring that any significant differences were the effect of the camp. We looked at God concept, religious motivation, religious coping, and spiritual well-being.

What did we find? Well, first off, I should note that we found that the kids attending these camps were already very religious. They attended church about once a week, they rated their religion as being "Very important" and nearly all rated their belief that Jesus is the Son of God as a 5 on a 5 point scale (what researchers call a ceiling effect). This is important to note because camps often focus more on conversions than on spiritual growth. But with a very religious camp, this might not be appropriate. Of course, some camps might have a greater representation of the less religious than we found at these camps.

What changes did we find? Campers changed their God concept so that they believed more in a Christian God concept (God is loving, kind, and not distant). Although campers were religious at the onset, their God concepts moved towards being more Christian, and this change was statistically significant, despite the "ceiling effect." We also found that campers had higher religious and existential well-being at the end of the camp. We weren't too surprised by higher religious well-being, which has to do with a sense that God loves them, but an increase in existential well-being, which has to do with a positive orientation towards life in general, was a bit more surprising. This means that the mechanisms targeting spiritual development at camps, the speakers, small groups, games, and free time, lead to an improved outlook on life as a whole. Our conclusion: the camps are doing a good job.

What changes didn't we find? Well, we didn't find any significant changes in belief in Jesus Christ. The reason: they had such high belief at the onset. The fact that some people still did not have a 5 out of 5 rating reflects doubt rather than unbelief, and there have been some studies that suggest doubt and questioning can be a positive aspect of spiritual development. We also didn't find any change in 7 variables of religious coping, or how campers use religious resources, such as prayer, clergy support, and listening to religious music, for example, to deal with problems in their lives. This is the area where we see the most room for growth for camps. Instead of trying to persuade campers about the truthfulness of the gospel and their need for salvation, camps can address the practical aspects of religious life, as the problems in our lives really do define who we are.

We also found that campers were increasing in extrinsic personal reasons for pursuing religion, rather than intrinsic reasons. That means they were increasing their religiousness because of what they got out of it, rather than because they found more to enjoy within religion. This finding may seem to be negative, but we suggest that this may simply be a stage that must be entered in order to progress towards a more intrinsic faith. Adolescents who find a lot of external reasons for becoming religious may be more likely to stick around religion and have positive feelings about faith in general. However, there is always the alternative explanation that these Christian camps are so much about fun that they distract campers from intrinsic faith. But we do not think that this is the case (as the campers are clearly changing positively in God concept and spiritual well-being).

To sum up, Christian camps change beliefs and increase external reasons for being religiously involved. They also increase religious and existential well-being. They do not seem to increase intrinsic reasons for pursuing religion (enjoyment of being religious for its own sake) and don't seem to change how campers use their religion in everyday life (but maybe this occurs when they get home, it just takes time to implement these changes). Of course, campers may change on variables that we didn't study and it's important to remember that, as well. Hope this clarifies the positive role that Christian camps can have on the spiritual life of youth in the course of a week.

Imitation of Christ

This quarter I've been taking a class entitled "Imitation and Mimetic Theory." It's a class that integrates research on human imitation with Rene Girard's theory of mimesis (think miming). Mimesis refers to the way that humans learn about the world through imitation. One of the fundamental aspects of being human is that we imitate one another, according to Girard. This can be seen in the interaction of two toddlers: one is playing with a toy and another comes along. When the new toddler sees the one playing with the toy, he immediately wants to play with that particular toy, even if there are other toys exactly like that one. Girard believes, and I am fairly convinced, that adults interact with one another in a similar fashion, albeit more sophisticated. The result is that humans tend to get into conflict because we want the same thing.

Research on imitation has found that humans are born with an innate ability to imitate. Newborns are capable of imitating facial movements, such as tongue protrusions (i.e. sticking your tongue out at the baby) even before they get the chance to see themselves in a mirror. Scientists discovered about ten years ago how this might occur with the discovery of "mirror neurons." Mirror neurons are neurons in the brain that fire regardless if the person is performing an action or if they are watching another person perform an action. The result is that the person will have the same experience regardless if they perform an action or watch an action performed. These mirror neurons are scattered among the brain and scientists are still trying to learn more about them.

Why is this important? Mirror neurons would mean that when a toddler sees another toddler playing with a toy, they will experience pleasure as if they themselves were playing with that toy, to a limited extent. That toddler will have desire for the toy awakened in him/her and will want to play with the toy.

Advertisers have known this implicitly for years. Showing a clip of a man or woman enjoying a product will leave viewers with the neural experience of having enjoyed that product. They will want that product more after they have seen someone else want it.

Where am I going with all this? The reality is that we all imitate. We try to be like others. Not exactly like them, but in the rhythm of our lives. We want to be successful, powerful, rich, influential, charismatic, beautiful, and funny. We learn how to be this way from our parents, our peers, media, and countless other sources. We choose others as our models for how to live.

The solution is not to revoke those people as evil but to choose better models for how to live. We find people who are living their lives for a greater purpose and imitate them. We choose our friends wisely and seek to learn from them. But most importantly, we hold up Christ, who was the perfect human for whom our innate motive to imitate was designed. We live like Christ, not in being a first century Jewish rabbi, but in his rhythm of living. We choose to live out his connection with the Father, his willingness to serve, and his pursuit of perfection. That is how we turn around our God-given imitative qualities to worship Jesus as Lord, rather than ourselves.

Elections and the Abandonment of Humility

I have been enjoying the lead-up to the presidential election. I'm naturally competitive and so I love to argue about policies and personalities. Most of those arguments happen only in my head with imaginary foes - where I naturally always win. But if there's one thing I hate about elections it's that morality goes right out the door. I'm not talking about "moral issues," I'm talking about the morality of the candidates themselves. Now lots has been said about negative campaigning and I hardly think I have much to contribute there. I want to discuss the deprication of humility in the campaign.

Now, in some ways, we don't expect or want the president to be humble. He (or she) should be the best person in the nation for the job and should know how to lead the country. The president needs to show confidence in decisions in order to bring together the country. For example, when John McCain said that the economy is not his strong suit, I took that to be a mark against him. The president should be strong in areas where he will be expected to make important decisions.

But a little humility is warranted. And it's not always respected in the election. When Barack Obama was asked when he thought a human life began, he responded that it was above his pay grade. Now, as one who thinks that abortion is wrong, I can still respect that he is willing to say that his opinion does not decide the matter. At the very least, I saw Obama being willing to admit his limits, that the president does not decide these matters. (As a reminder, Roe v Wade was decided not upon when life began but on medical privacy - )

The fact is that a lack of humility has been present throughout both campaigns. McCain said that experience is of the utmost importance in the presidential campaign then selects a vice-presidential candidate with almost no experience and then has the audacity to call her experienced. Obama made the argument that he would bring change to Washington then selects an experienced Washington insider, coloring him as one who would shake up Washington.

The problem is bipartisan. But it's not a Washington problem. It's an American problem and a people problem. We've lost our faith in humility as a core value in being human. We excuse it in ourselves and idolize the narcissist, forgetting how tough it is to actually deal with people who are so self-absorbed. We present ourselves under the guise of a mask in order to keep people from knowing our flaws. And when we see someone else exposed, we pounce on the opportunity to strengthen our image by attacking their deficits, selfishly ignoring our own shortcomings.

We should learn to expect humanity from our leaders, from our fellows, and from ourselves. We should not kid ourselves and believe that we are better than others. We should expect occasional failure and admire those who are willing to admit it. I hope your friends look past your occasional poor decisions and I hope that you are willing to look past the occasional poor decisions of these presidential candidates. The real reason they have abandoned humility is because we have abandoned it. Let's remember how important it is by remembering how important it was to Jesus - the divine man who said that his creation was more important than he was and gave up his life to that end.

Believing in the Miraculous

I took a course this summer on the miraculous in the New Testament. We looked particularly at the miracles of Jesus and what the gospel authors wanted to convey through these miracles. The miracles included healings, exorcisms, feedings, and nature miracles. What became evident was that Jesus himself understood his miracles not as a validation of his ministry but as an essential part of what he was doing. In other words, the Kingdom of God was the miracles. Jesus, who ushered in this kingdom, did so by performing miracles of healing and exorcism.

Why is this significant? Well, for a number of reasons. If miracles are the Kingdom of God, then being followers of Jesus means that we are expected to bring miracles to the world as well. We are to bring healing and we are to expel Satan from the world. We cannot assume that we cannot perform miracles. We ought to have faith in our ability to perform miracles in the name of Jesus. We can't believe that salvation means that we convert people to a belief system alone. Salvation, entering into the Kingdom of God, means that we bring earthly good to our fellows as well as showing them the truth of Jesus' identity.

So where does that fit with psychology? I think that as a counselor, I would not perform any ritualistic exorcism on a client. But I would try to expel Satan, the fountain of evil, from their lives. This means leading them to make better choices in their lives and restoring them to the sanity of a life well-lived. I would also bring healing by allowing their minds to work more effectively. Can I not believe that it is miraculous to perform effective psychotherapy? Jesus wasn't the only one performing miracles in his time. And so we shouldn't be surprised in finding that non-Christian therapists are making miraculous changes in people's lives.

A talking cure? Come on, you've got to admit that it does seem a little bit like a miracle.

What's Inside that Noggin of Yours?

This year I will be working as a neuropsychology clerk at a rehabilitation hospital as part of my clinical training as a psychologist. I will be administering various tests to patients, primarily with traumatic brain injury but also a wide variety of other issues. Traumatic brain injury occurs when the brain receives a significant jolt, for example from a car accident, that causes memory and attention deficits, as well as personality changes. These changes are typically temporary but they can often persist long enough and be severe enough to cause great concern.

The real issue that I wish to bring up is that I have been reflecting on my difficulty in understanding mental issues to be caused by problems with the brain. I simply find it difficult to attribute behavioral problems to physiological causes. Not to say that I do not believe it, I just find it difficult to incorporate that knowledge into how I conceptualize others.

The trouble is that people with brain damage or chemical imbalances can often look healthy. While many of the patients at the hospital are still recovering from their wounds, there are also plenty who appear to be healthy but nevertheless behave in bizarre manners. So when we see them acting strangely, we are tempted to disassociate from them and label them as odd.

What we must remember is that we have a common bond with all of humanity, and we may be just one car crash away from being severely changed. We must remember that we can have so much taken away from us, even our personality. And we must show great love for all others, including those who have been changed by physiological problems.