C'mon, everyone else is doing it!

Hey all! I hope everyone is doing well and what not. School just started back up for the UC system, so I'm finally delving back into the life of academics haha. Classes look interesting right now, but of course, that's the start, so it's hard to accurately say so just yet. Hopefully everyone else is enjoying their classes!

In fact, this post is somewhat inspired by one of my classes... I'm taking Social Psychology this quarter with Professor Lieberman. I had heard him speak before at a psychology conference and thought he was interesting, so I was down to take his class. Anyways, at the start of the class, Lieberman told us to follow a set of online instructions (anyone who may take Lieberman, spoiler alert!). The first slide instructed us to stand up from our seats, and the following slides told us to do a series of stretches to the right, left, back, and so forth. We ended up doing stretches about twice in a row, and at this point most people seemed kinda annoyed. Well, the last two slides were a bit different... The first slide said "Give Professor Lieberman the finger" and the second slide said "Say 'F*** you, Professor Lieberman.'" Needless to say, this was something that most of the class did not see coming. Yet, it was surprising that so many students in the class actually did give him the finger and curse him out. I'm not positive how many people actually did do it due to my location, but it looked/sounded that at least half of the class did so...

Afterwards, Lieberman thanked us all (how ironic haha) and told us to sit down. He then proceeded to ask us why we gave him the finger and cursed at him, which was something clearly against university policy? A brave student replied that it was his (Lieberman's) instructions and thus everyone was just following what they were supposed to be doing. Lieberman told us that this is the common answer he gets every year, and something that he thought would illustrate a good point about the diffusion of responsibility and peer pressure... You see, an act such as cursing out a teacher is something done a lot easier in a group than by yourself since everyone else around you is doing it. It's hard to pinpoint just one person since there are multiple people contributing, hence the term "diffusion of responsibility." The funny thing is, we tend not to recognize the reason that we find it so easy to do these things is because everyone else is. There are attempts at rationalization and justification (such as following online instructions), but the ease still comes from the fact that we're not alone in doing these things.

Don't get me wrong, though. The number of people may not be the only reason why we do such things, but part of the reason why it's easier. To demonstrate this point, he had one girl that cursed him out earlier come up to the front of the classroom and had her stare directly at him. He then asked her to give him the finger once again. This girl, in front of all her peers, did not even hesitate and blatantly threw Professor Lieberman the middle finger. This was quite hilarious, for Lieberman look taken aback, even if only for a moment. Typically, he explained, when someone comes up alone and he asks them to give him the finger, the person usually just stares awkwardly at the floor and doesn't do anything else... Yet, this one student was audacious enough to do it in front of everybody and while completely alone. This helps to show that a group setting isn't the only reason/motivation people may have for doing things, but it may help to affect the ease/difficulty of the action itself...

It's a little bit of an extrapolation, but it makes me curious as if groups can cause people to do things/further their beliefs in something they wouldn't do alone. For example, let's say that someone is discriminatory against other people's races. Alone, he may be afraid to be openly discriminatory by committing acts of hatred against another person simply for their race. But, if he joins a group, the person may know that they're not alone anymore. This may cause acts for one's beliefs to be done with more ease since he knows he's not the only one doing it anymore, or at least that's what he may subconsciously observe around him. Thus, acts of hatred and violence can be easier to commit in groups simply due to this idea of diffusion of responsibility.

What I've been saying may not be something horribly new to you as a reader... It's an idea that has been passed along somewhat before, but the most interesting point I thought of is that many religious groups may function this way as well... If there's some belief/idea that one may hold onto, and a certain religion's ideals are in line with it, then that person may join/stay as part of the group so that way they can feel justified in having a belief that the rest of society may not hold onto. Since it's probably the easiest possibility to see, let's just say that someone has views against homosexuality. As time is progressing, the view towards acceptance of homosexuality is something that is definitely gaining ground. Yet, there are still those that are against the idea of homosexuality and try to find some way to justify their thoughts against it. Thus, if one joined/is part of a faction of Christianity that is openly against homosexuality, their beliefs would be justified by having everyone else around them doing the same thing. Thus, alone, they may be afraid to say/do such things, but with a group front it may be easier for such beliefs to become present. Please don't get me wrong and think I'm saying that all Christians preach hate towards homosexuals and what not, but it's true that there are many groups out there today that do. I am referencing those groups as a possibility for what one may join in order to have their beliefs in line with others and thus make them feel justified in believing and doing what they do.

Hmm, this is post is a little bit shorter and haphazard than most, but hopefully it's still able to make sense and what not. My brain seems to be slipping even though it's not too late yet... So, it probably makes sense to just call this a post. Even though this isn't much, it'll probably function as a good springboard for some posts I make later on... So yes, hopefully this post makes some form of sense, and at the very least, I hope I gave you some food for thought...

A Price to Love?

Hey all! Sorry for not writing for a long time... I seem to be in a huge writing funk or something. Maybe it's just because I've been at work quite a bit or I'm still getting used to moving again... Interestingly enough, I've started a few times here or there, but I just can't seem to finish. So, I hope this time is different at the very least and I'll be able to get something out here...

Anyways, one of the other nights around here I was talking with my roommate Jose, and we happened to get into a good conversation over one of his random stories. Essentially, Jose was busy studying for summer finals and was studying outside Ackerman (the building where I work) due to the library being closed. While he was out there, two people came up to him and asked if he wouldn't mind being surveyed. Jose decided to be nice and consented. The people started asking him questions, and he quickly realized that is was a religious survey (Just for background info, Jose identifies himself as Catholic). Some of the questions involved whether or not there is a God and whether or not Jesus existed, which is something he agreed yes to.

Yet, one of the questions that stuck out to him was whether or not someone can be saved simply by believing in Jesus Christ as one's Savior, which is the key point of typical Protestant denominations. But, followers of Catholicism typically advocate works as the way to be saved. One of the things Jose mentioned is that when talking to a pastor about afterlife uncertainty, they would suggest that he do more works in order to be saved. Of course, this doesn't mean that Catholicism doesn't neglect importance on belief itself. It seems, at least from Jose's viewpoint, that what you do is more important than just believing itself.

This is always something I find quite interesting, for this is a point where many Protestants and Catholics tend not to see eye to eye (or I 2 I hahah. Good song!). Protestants typically advocate that belief in Jesus as your personal Savior is the most important part, and works shall follow as a result. Yet, from the little knowledge I have of Catholicism, Catholics typically place a huge precedence on the works that you do for your beliefs. So, beliefs are important, but what you do as a result are huge. In fact, Catholics have seven sacraments. Wiki has a good description of them and what not if you're curious, but they're sort of like important acts of grace that are imitable of Christ (for some). Some of these things include giving alms, baptism, the Eucharist, and more. Now, not all of these acts are necessary for salvation, but they should be done to acquire salvation. From the impression of research I've done, they're things you should do to ensure salvation but not all of them have to be done... Of course, that's slightly ambiguous and up in the air, but hopefully it gives some form of info...

Anyways, Jose brought the idea to me that he doesn't think one can be saved simply by beliefs. The example he used involves someone who's involved in some type of constant sin. Just for some form of objectiveness, let's just say this person constantly murders people. Thus, this person, who labels himself as a Christian and believes he will be saved, constantly murders people. After he murders someone, though, he prays to God for repentance, and thus he believes he's saved afterwards. The cycle continues, and this person goes about his daily life occasionally murdering people and then repenting. According to the idea that one can be saved simply be belief, Jose said that this person who is constantly murdering would be saved. Thus, it would be more important to place an emphasis on one's works, for the person's works involve him occasionally murdering people and nothing else really religious except for saying that he believes in God and what not.

This is something quite interesting and it could be quite problematic for the Protestant viewpoint, for this person who would saved according to the idea that as long as you believe you are saved would not be demonstrating Christ-like actions. Yet, if it is true that he would be saved simply by his beliefs, why does it matter what he demonstrates? Other people may not be led towards Christianity due to his actions, but he himself would still be saved, right?

Humm... This is really a tough call to make. And, what I may say next may sound funny, so please don't take this the wrong way. But, in the previous case, I don't know if the person who is murdering others occasionally is somebody that loves God... According to Scripture (Since we are trying to argue from a Christian standpoint; not trying to offend anyone who's not Christian), "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment." (Matthew 22:37-38 for anyone who's wondering). This is something that Jesus directly says, so I would think that it would have some significance in that sense. But, what makes this different than before is that it advocates love, not just belief. Belief in God may be necessary for Salvation, but possibly not sufficient... James 2:19 states, "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." It would seem, then, that the author of James is advocating that there is more to being saved than just simply believing in God. Thus, the component for Salvation could be present in love, as Jesus advocates.

This could be a possible solution to the previous problem... For, if it's truly whether or not someone loves God, then belief would not be the only determining factor. Thus, the person who goes around murdering people may believe in God, yet if he didn't love God, then he wouldn't be saved, even if he did proclaim himself as a Christian. To make this statement, though, we have to assume that one's actions change as a result of one's love. For example, the idea would be that if you love your family/significant other/friend or what not, you would do stuff to demonstrate your love (For those that know their econ, think of this as essentially revealed preference). Just as a personal tidbit, I think this may be why Catholicism may advocate so strongly the use of works. For, anyone can say that they believe/love something, but not everybody does acts for what they love.

Yet, this is where this gets really tricky to write... I purposefully chose murder as something that most people would agree on as wrong and thus wouldn't be something one would do as a Christian. Yet, what about the sins that Christians struggle with? What about things such as constantly watching porn? Or coveting? Or thievery? Are people that may struggle with these sins saved? If they do truly love God, then why hasn't their behavior changed in order to avoid these things Christians typically view as sins?

Hum... This is tough stuff to write on, so if I offend you in any way, I am sorry. But, it's really hard to say whether or not these people truly love God if they struggle with such sins. I mean, the idea is that we're all human, and thus we sin as a part of that nature. Who hasn't offended or hurt someone they love? Yet, even if we do, does that mean we no longer love them? Would just one offense mean that we don't love that person, whether God or another human, enough? This idea seems quite ridiculous, even though it would be nice if it were near impossible to hurt someone if you loved them enough.

Well, if we come to the new conclusion that you can love someone, yet still can do something that hurts/is offensive to someone, that would mean people that struggle with sin could still be saved (according to Protestant ideals). If that is the case, what about the original person we brought up that occasionally murders someone? In the example we gave, the person didn't do anything to demonstrate his "love" to Christ other than saying that he did. So, in the case, people may still agree that he's not really demonstrating his love. But, again, this was meant to be a very extreme objective example to draw some form of boundary. So, now we must ask about everyone else... What about those that go to Church and pray and what not, yet still struggle so much with sins? How do we know at what point that these people have been saved, since it's so hard to gauge how much they love God by their actions, which seem so conflicting? In other words, do their actions mean that they truly love God? How much do we have to do to show that we love God? If the person went to Church in addition to killing the people occasionally, would that be enough to be saved? How about if he added more acts, such as praying and getting baptized? Or, would he have to get rid of that sin altogether? If he would have to, would that have to apply to other people and other sins as well?

I don't even know if it's possible to be 100% positive about the answer to these questions... I've heard Protestants say that Catholicism has problems with the certainty of salvation. Yet, it seems that Protestants may have the same problem, even if it's not as obvious, so to speak. It could be possible that we're not able to properly judge whether or not another person is saved, since it may be impossible to accurately judge whether or not someone truly "loves" someone else. This would also bring into question those that convert on their death bed. Even though they are no longer able to commit any acts (due to passing away), did they truly believe and love God before they died? Like I said before, maybe it's not something we can know and it's something personal between the person and God. Unfortunately, whether or not we can accurately judge whether or not a person is saved, others may still try to judge, whether or not those people are Christians. This can lead not only to possible issues of self-righteousness but it can also turn others away from Christianity...

Humm... I feel like I've said a lot, but it's really a mess of thoughts here and there... Hopefully it made some sort of sense... Honestly, I don't know if there's that much to take from this post. It is quite a bit of ramblding haha. But, at the very least, hopefully people may broaden their perspectives on love and salvation... But yes, thank you Jose for striking up such an interesting conversation, and hopefully I've given everyone some food for thought...