Decision 2016 - How Well Do You Make Decisions?

Imagine you had to make the following two decisions simultaneously (and you had no moral objection to gambling).

Decision #1:

Choice A: Sure gain of $240

Choice B: 25% chance to gain $1000 and 75% chance to gain nothing

Decision #2:

Choice C: Sure loss of $750

Choice D: 75% chance to lose $1000 and 25% chance to lose nothing

If you are like most people, you’d probably choose A and then D. No one in their right mind would pick C under any circumstances, right? Without a doctorate in statistics, but with some slow and effortful thinking, we can reason through the following if we focus on “the big picture”…

What do the following decisions taken together really mean?

Choice A and D = 25% chance to win $240 and 75% chance to lose $760

Choice B and C = 25% chance to win $250 and 75% chance to lose $750

(If you doubt it, go back and study it for a while)

Including choice C (a sure loss of $750) with choice B is a better gamble.1

I know...it's hard to believe.

The above is an example of a situation that is easily under analyzed by the average person, but over analyzing can lead to bad decisions as well. I think the current presidential election is an example of something currently being over analyzed. With all the talk of tax returns, an pneumonia and even the current president’s origin of birth, we easily get lost in the arcane details. How can we look at the big picture of a complex situation without be sidetracked by all the obscure and often irrelevant data?

The decisions about gambling shown above can be looked at objectively; decisions about elections get much more subjective, but here’s a way to look at it using a simplified version of a process we use where I work called Decision Analysis—except that it’s done in terms of Faith and Reason. First, some clarity on what’s most important…

-       What is important?

-       Reality is important.

-       What is Catholicism?

-       A universal way of seeing reality; a way of seeing in which we can best respond to the world around us.

Now, what are the specific ways in which government acts or has acted to undermine this reality (policy or law contrary to the Catholic faith)? What are the trends?

Please Note: What follows is just an example. You can make your own list of issues and follow each step using your own input, but be specific. Things like “Life Issues”, “Social Justice”, “Religious Liberty” and even "Temperament" are too general.

Step 1: List specific issues (as many as you want)

• Euthanasia
• Abortion
• Torture
• Marriage definition
• Unjust war
• HSS Mandate

Step 2: Think of the current impact of each issue and its potential trend

Issue	Impact
Euthanasia	Legal in 4 states, trend increasing
Abortion	>1 million babies killed per year (U.S.) and continuing unabated
Torture	Currently no reports of the gov. torturing people. Those in favor could reinstate it
Marriage Definition	Adds to sexual confusion/sin. Discrimination increasing for those holding a traditional marriage view
Unjust War	Dealing with world-wide aftermath. Those in favor could start a new war
HSS Mandate	Law suits taking time & money. Catholic Institutions closing or being punished. Higher cost to government to fill the gap.

Step 3: Find the most serious issue and give it a 10 (there can be more than one 10). Compare others to it and assign numbered weights by comparing to the 10. Remember that this is only an example.

Issue	Impact	Weight
Euthanasia	Legal in 4 states, trend increasing	7
Abortion	>1 million babies killed per year (U.S.) and continuing unabated	10
Torture	Currently no reports of the gov. torturing people. Those in favor could reinstate it	3
Marriage Definition	Adds to sexual confusion/sin. Discrimination increasing for those holding a traditional marriage view	8
Unjust War	Dealing with world-wide aftermath. Those in favor could start a new war	6
HSS Mandate	Law suits taking time & money. Catholic Institutions forced to close or be punished. Higher cost to government to fill the gap.	7

Step 4: Compare candidates. Score the best candidate for each issue with a 10. Note that 10 does not mean “perfect” and there can be more than one 10. Score remaining candidates (0–10) relative to the 10. Multiply score x weight and add the weighted scores.

Issue	Weight	Democrat	Republican	Libertarian	Green
Euthanasia	7	6 6x7=42	10 10x7=70	2 2x7=14	5 5x7=35
Abortion	10	2 2x10=20	10 10x10=100	6 6x10=60	4 4x10=40
Torture	3	10 10x3=30	0 0x3=0	9 9x3=27	10 10x3=30
Marriage Definition	8	2 2x8=16	10 10x8=80	5 5x8=40	2 2x8=16
Unjust War	6	7 7x6=42	2 2x6=12	10 10x6=60	7 7x6=42
HSS Mandate	7	5 5x7=35	8 8x7=56	10 10x7=70	4 4x7=28
	Weighted Score	185	318	271	191

Please Note: At this point in the election cycle, carefully analyzing a third party candidate is like analyzing a fantasy…interesting, but basically a waste of time.

Step 5: Asses risk. Look at the candidate with the highest weighted score and ask, “If he/she was elected what could go wrong?” Are we willing to accept the risk(s) to gain the benefit of this choice? If yes, pick it. If not, repeat for the next best candidate.

Now, this is all very interesting, but let’s not kid ourselves; people won’t do this. Thinking is very hard and we are very lazy, so we make quick decisions based on intuition like choosing A and D in the gambling example above.

I try not to make decisions based solely on intuition, but I will make a prediction. I predict the Republican running for president will lose and at about the same margin as the 2012 election (332 to 206 electoral votes). But Donald Trump and Mitt Romney are so vastly different in how they present themselves; what makes me think the result will be about the same?

I think the “God Demographics” of society are changing. What do I mean by God demographics? As a society moves further and further from God, it must naturally gravitate more and more toward sin (we won’t stay still). If sin is the root of all unhappiness, then more sin means more dissatisfaction with life. If we are moving away from God, we must find another “savior” to liberate us from what is wrong so we can finally be happy.

In general terms (there are plenty of exceptions I'm sure), I think the portions of the electorate who are satisfied with life want less government involvement, fewer taxes, less regulation, etc. They tend to lean Republican. Those dissatisfied look to government as the ultimate source to make things right, just, fair, etc. They tend to lean Democrat. Other political parties never seem to gain ground either way. The current Republican presidential candidate is certainly not your typical candidate, but I think the pattern in God Demographics mentioned above will “Trump” everything else. We’ll see.

For those looking for a simpler analysis, I heard this on the Dennis Prager radio show not too long ago...

• Door #1 says "Man Eating Lion."
• Door #2 says "Perhaps Man Eating Lion."

Which do you choose?

We await your decision.

I'll take Door #2
BTW,
Trump = Door #2

1. Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011) p. 334.

My Book is Now Available!

Buy the book based on the blog!!! It’s Faith with Good Reason and it’s now available on Amazon Books. CLICK HERE!

I’m pleased that the release date is September 23, the feast day of St Pio of Pietrelcina. In case you are not familiar, St. Pio was a Capuchin Friar in Italy that had the stigmata. The wounds of Christ were on his body for 50 years. He died in 1968, so this is not something far removed from our own day and age. When I was a teen, I saw a secular documentary about St. Pio (then Padre Pio) and it was the first time I saw religion as not just "talk"; there was something physical happening and it stuck in the back of my mind. It was the first time I saw a clear connection between physical reality and spiritual reality—the visible and the invisible—which has a lot to do with the book.

Book Description:

“This book is a practical look at faith, reason and problem solving for dealing with the common realities we face, navigating the gaps between what we know and what we don’t—for all things visible and invisible. Thinking means linking ideas. Analytical problem solving is about finding “truth” objectively, regardless of feelings, strong opinions, past experiences or intuition; finding truth even when empirical evidence is lacking or impossible to obtain. No one sees reality in its entirety, yet people firmly believe things they can’t prove. We use base premises to judge things, whether consciously or subconsciously. Like any good problem solving situation, it’s important to drill down to the base premises of our thinking and then ascertain where they come from and how reasonable they are when pressed under deliberate questioning.”

It’s ideal for those who…

• Appreciate rational thinking, but do not appreciate Catholicism or religion in general.

• Were baptized and raised Catholic, but had no real connection between faith and everyday life.

• Might struggle between choosing “Catholic” and “none” when faced with a survey question about religious preference

• Lead with their head, making reasonable and responsible decisions about how to live and what to believe based on certain rationales rather than emotion.

• Are neither gullible nor cynical.

• Do not jump to conclusions, but advance cautiously from one step of reasoning to the next.

Foreword written by Stacy A. Trasancos, PhD. Author of Particles of Faith: A Catholic Guide to Navigating Science & Science Was Born of Christianity: The Teaching of Fr. Stanley L. Jaki; also, professor of Science in the Light of Faith at Holy Apostles College & Seminary.

INTERESTING SIDE NOTE:

A significant amount of the royalties will be donated to these fine gentlemen in the mountains of Wyoming to help build their new monastery.

Enjoy Faith with Good Reason!!!

Contemplating the Particles of Faith

I recently had the opportunity to review a new book before its release. The book is called Particles of Faith by Stacy A. Trasancos; it’s an ideal stocking stuffer (and it’s not too early to think about stocking stuffers) for the college student who just left home for the very first time to study the sciences, and perhaps, stopped going to church for the very first time as well. Many struggle with how to reconcile faith and science. This book will show you how science can only be properly understood in the light of faith.

The author is a Catholic scientist herself, so who better to write on the topic. Read it and learn all about…

• The chasm that faces every scientist
• How scientists know very much about very little
• The “System of Wills” and the interlocking system of reality
• The Battleship of Scientism: Can you trust a ship that does not know where it is going or where it came from?
• How the story of evolution is itself evolving
• How to answer that question that annoys so many, especially in a big election year. “When does human life begin?”
• How leaves on a tree, flapping mindlessly in the wind, helped bring a scientist to faith

This book reminded me a lot of something mentioned a few times on this blog called “The Weak Eye”1. It’s an allegory I often elaborate on from lay apologist Frank Sheed. It goes like this…

We have two physical eyes. There are also “two eyes” when looking at life; a secular eye and a spiritual eye. Our secular eye can refer to not only our bodily senses, but also all the practical things we study and learn about to help us function in our communities, homes, and jobs. This would include all the sciences as well. The spiritual eye is about how we all ponder things like the Good, the Beautiful, the True and the meaning behind it all. This eye is focused on spiritual reality. Many Catholics end up with a weak spiritual eye simply because they don’t know or exercise their faith.

What happens if we have one weak eye? There is lack of focus; we cannot see reality clearly. This can explain how those who are highly trained and educated in science can lack spiritual common sense. We can even be educated out of our faith as the secular eye gets stronger and stronger, while the spiritual eye is ignored and grows weaker and weaker. No exercise.

Once we find that reality seems unclear, what can we do? We can either close the weak eye and forget it entirely or exercise it and build its strength. But how? Think of a child that has a condition sometimes called “lazy eye”2. A doctor might recommend a way for the weak eye to start working harder. If this isn’t done, there is a good chance one eye will always be weaker than the other eye. As a result, the brain favors the stronger eye. The weaker eye tends to wander. Eventually, the brain may ignore the signals received from the weaker eye. One eye will always be blurry, one always sharp.

It’s the same thing in the spiritual life as the author alludes to in her book. She began to follow what the Church teaches (as an act of the will) by attending Mass, praying daily, consciously pursuing virtue and avoiding sin, all of which gave her spiritual eye the opportunity for exercise. If we don’t do these things, we will always favor the secular eye due to poor vision in the other spiritual eye. The weaker eye will tend to wander (spiritual wandering). Eventually, you may ignore the signals received from the weaker eye. One eye will always be blurry, one always sharp. “Whoever has ears ought to hear.” (Mt 13:9)

In terms of proof, the author tested the principles of the faith in the laboratory of her life and found them to be true, but in the end aren’t all proofs like a glass of water?

“You can purify that water and set it down in all the fine crystal you want, but you cannot force a person to drink it.”

—Stacy Transancos

Particles of Faith, page 69

Pre-order your copy today!!

Released date Oct. 10th

1.     Frank Sheed, Theology for Beginners (Cincinnati: Servant Books, 1981) p. 185.

2.     Mayo Clinic Staff, Mayo Clinic [Website], “Diseases and Conditions Lazy eye (amblyopia) Definition” (3 July 2013), Site address: http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/lazy-eye/basics/definition/con-20029771

The Dark Side of Dolphins

Atheistic environmentalism seems to perpetuate the view that nature is perfect just the way it is. It acts as a kind of secular “dogma”. With this as a base premise, we can see the logic that concludes the following…any unnatural interference or manipulation of nature for the benefit of man is a deprivation of nature’s perfection, and a good definition of evil is just that—a deprivation of perfection. Therefore, defending anything in nature against man is intrinsically “good” and promoting man’s industrialization and expansion is intrinsically “evil”.

From a Catholic perspective, we live in a fallen world. The harmony and order of creation has become disordered because of Original Sin. I have always felt that evils like natural disasters, disease and even some of the brutality of animals are the result of Original Sin. Paragraph 400 in the Catechism says “Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject ‘to its bondage to decay’” Scripture also gives us a hint, “…that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now;” (Rom 8:21-22). In the Catholic view, the evil found in nature mirrors the evil in the human heart.1

Another atheistic, and perhaps environmentalist “dogma” is that people are merely smart animals. Observed differences between people and animals are only a matter of “spectrum”, meaning that any human behavior can be found in the animal kingdom, albeit from a lower end of the evolutionary scale. I have yet to hear a good Darwinistic reason as to why humans wear cloths (even in the hottest climates), appreciate the arts, and have a longing to worship something greater than themselves, but I digress.

With humans fundamentally the same as animals as a base premise, we can see the logic that concludes the following…any basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness granted to people should apply to animals too (intelligent animals at the very least). Also, if we truly want to learn more about ourselves and understand what it means to be fully human, why bother studying philosophy, theology or Church teaching? We must study animals; especially intelligent animals that have never been corrupted by things like "religion".

Consider dolphins. We all know how cute, smart and playful dolphins are. Maybe we’ve seen or heard of shows like “Flipper” and movies like “Dolphin Tale” or the kind of endearing antics dolphins do at SeaWorld and other marine animal shows. Dolphins are undeniably and absolutely wonderful, are they not? I thought this too until I saw a documentary about the dark side of dolphins. Aside from some violent attacks on humans, I was quite surprised to learn that male dolphins have a kind of “rape culture”.

Here is a clip (consider it PG-13):

These highly evolved and intelligent mammals will sexually assault not only adult females, but under aged males and females as well. There also seems to be a lot of kidnapping going on. Groups of males will work together to keep a harem of females captive. The video called them “sex pirates”!! They also showed a team of two males trapping one female for themselves. They take turns guarding and raping the female while the other hunts for food.

What does this have to do with us? Thinking means connecting things and what we think leads to what we do. If nature is perfect just as it is, and animals are part of nature, and humans are merely smart animals, how can we present ethics in any coherent way? Can dolphins be immoral? Do dolphins have rights? If yes, could we not argue for a moral obligation to protect the innocent animals and punish or rehabilitate the guilty ones? If intelligent animals have no moral culpability, how do we separate the dark side of dolphins from the dark side of humans…and what makes it “dark” to begin with? After all, boys will be boys.

Remember that defining our idea of “right” vs. “wrong” depends on the beliefs we hold, and since we all believe things we can’t prove, it’s essential to drill down to the base premises for those beliefs to clarify exactly what they mean and where they come from. We seem to be forgetting that ideas have consequences.

1. Fr. Greg Shaffer, CW Catholic Q&A [Website], “Natural disasters - from God or because of us?” (15 October 2010), Site address: http://gwcatholicforum.blogspot.com/2010/10/natural-disasters-from-god-or-because.html