Andrew Sullivan pointed to Volkswagen's Fun Theory project, where they use fun to make the world a better place.

Here's the clip showing how they get people to use the stairs:



Two more experiments where you can see how they get people to recycle and throw away litter.

At church on Wednesday, Dwayne pointed me to the group Improv Everywhere. This group does dramatic group experiments in public places. Here are two samples of their work:





Finally, awhile back, Tyler Priest passed on Peter Rollins' comment that the Kingdom of God might be like a flash mob. A flash mob as Tyler describes it:

A flash mob is the result of social networking via technologies like cell-phone text messaging, viral email, Facebook, etc. Essentially, a flash mob leader will typically choose a crowded public space (think city center, campus commons, massive train station, shopping mall (ick), etcetera). The flash mob leader or mob network will communicate a detailed plan to a critical mass, including a designated meeting space at a designated time, with specific instructions, such as, “Bring a pillow for a massive fight in the City Center,” or “Bring an umbrella to the center of campus and we’ll form a massive canopy under which we will sing children’s songs.” Then, as if the event had never happened, participants will nonchalantly walk away and fade back into the street crowd and go their separate ways.

Here's the example Tyler posted:



Many more examples of flash mobs can be found on YouTube.

Here's why I'm pointing you to all this stuff:

Christian worship has always had a dramatic element to it. From the smells and costumes of high liturgy to the multimedia extravaganza of mega-churches. But by and large these dramatic presentations and rituals are for the church. But I wonder, as I think about the Fun Theory experiments, Improv Everywhere and flash mobs, what it would be like if the church started taking its flair for the dramatic into the world. Perform for the world and in the world. And not just perform. Invite into a life, a new way of being, a new community. More, move into the world, as the Fun Theory does, to make the world a better place, to nudge people into joy and goodness. What would church be like if worship planning committees sat around thinking this: "What can we do for the world and in the world that can invite people into the joy and goodness of God?"

Slate has a slideshow with commentary about skull-themed fashion, then and now.

I've written about the Vanitas artwork in the Christian tradition, where skulls, hourglasses or bubbles were inserted into pictures to provide a mortality reminder.

I actually have a skull (not a real one) in my office for just this purpose.

The Huffington Post has up an article about demonic candy. Apparently, Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network posted a blog by Kimberly Daniels warning of evil Milk Duds and satanic candycorn. I surfed to the CBN website but it looks like they took the post down. But according to Huff Post the CBN writer wrote that:

"During this period demons are assigned against those who participate in the rituals and festivities. These demons are automatically drawn to the fetishes that open doors for them to come into the lives of human beings. For example, most of the candy sold during this season has been dedicated and prayed over by witches."

One more Halloween-week post!

Our youngest son, Aidan, loves aliens. So for his birthday this year Jana and I decided that we'd take Aidan to Roswell, NM.

Aidan was thrilled with this idea. A friend of his at school had gone to Roswell during Spring Break and brought back pictures to show the class. Ever since, Aidan has been wanting to go to Roswell and see the aliens for himself.

For the uninitiated, Roswell is the UFO center of the world. Area 51 being the other hot spot. Roswell's reputation comes from the fact that on July 8, 1947 the Roswell Daily Record ran the following headline: RAAF Captures Flying Saucer on Ranch in Roswell Region. Here's a picture of that headline:

Facsimile copies of the July 8, 1947 Roswell Register can be purchased all over Roswell. The Register story eventually made its way onto the news wires and got reported around the country, in big city papers and on the radio. You can read more about the Roswell UFO Incident here.

Today, downtown Roswell is a sleepy place with alien-themed streetlamps and couple of alien-themed stores to pull in the tourists and the visitors of the International UFO Museum and Research Library. We went to Roswell with the intent to do every cheesy tourist thing you could do that involved UFOs and aliens.

The funnest and goofiest stop was Area 51. The front of Area 51 is an alien gift shop:

The back area of Area 51 is a bunch of sets with aliens placed in them: A backyard barbecue, a bar, an alien autopsy room, a living room. You pose yourself in these scenes and take as many pictures as you want, being as goofy as you want. Here's Brenden in one scene:

Here's the birthday boy chilling with an alien:

Finally, here's yours truly in an outhouse, taking care of business, with an alien:

The serious UFO visitor also makes a stop at the International UFO Museum and Research Library:

The Museum is mainly, although its trying to be more, a record of the media and newspaper coverage of the Roswell incident with most of the "exhibits" being newspaper clippings hung on the wall. But there was also lots of neat vintage UFO material documenting the UFO craze in America in the 1950s and 60s. Here's Aidan looking at a circa-1950s UFO identification guide:

We also watched an interesting documentary about crop circles while at the museum. Very illuminating.

All in all, a very fun visit and our birthday boy had a blast.

But this isn't a blog about my family and personal life. This is a blog about psychology and religion. So what's the connection?

Well, in planning for our Roswell trip on the internet I came across a Christian group in Roswell called Alien Resistance that takes the position that "aliens" are actually demons. On one of their websites I found the following Q and A under the FAQ section:

Question:
Does invoking the name of JESUS CHRIST to stop an Abduction experience work for everyone that uses it?

Answer:
No it does not. It is not a magic word. For those who have accepted JESUS CHRIST as their LORD and Master and have made a personal relationship with him it does work.

I think this highly important for my non-Christian readers to note. Please, if you are a non-Christian reader, don't think that invoking the name of Jesus will help you escape from an alien abduction. This only works for us Christians. Non-Christians will have to try something else. Best of luck with that.

Obviously, as a psychologist, I'm just riveted by all this. The whole UFO phenomenon and the culture surrounding it. Anthropologically speaking, it's just interesting to dip into these "cultures of belief" noting how they develop, evolve and deal with skepticism. The main feature is a kind of ideological insularity, gorging yourself on the information and voices that support the worldview. And it's not just with paranormal cults. Religious groups show similar tendencies, as do secular groups. Think about how FOX News or MSNBC thrive by feeding the true-believers exactly what they want to hear. It's a universal phenomenon.

Which is why I think it so important to develop the trait of intellectual hospitality and curiosity. These are the epistemic virtues lacking in today's world, especially among many religious groups.

More Halloween-week fun.

Interesting article today in Slate about the hobby of graving. A description of the graving hobby from the Slate article:

The graving hobby encompasses a range of activities: There are tombstone tourists who plan vacations around the resting places of 1950s Hollywood stars and military gravers who track down the government-issue markers of fallen 101^st Airborne soldiers. Genealogical gravers fill blank spots in their family tree with information gleaned from far-flung headstones. Preservationist gravers use bleach to clean mottle from 200-year-old markers. Many gravers just like to hang out in cemeteries and look at the stones.

Many gravers use the website Find a Grave, which Slate calls "The Facebook for the Dead."

I don't think I'd consider myself a graver, but I am an aficionado of cemeteries. I love to visit old cemeteries and look at the symbolism of the statuary and artwork. I've always found this to be a spiritual activity, a part of the memento mori tradition. It's also why I like Ecclesiastes so much:

I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"

So I saw that there is nothing better for a man than to enjoy his work, because that is his lot. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him?

Continuing with our week of Halloween-themed posts.

The Associated Press reports today that members of Sasquatch Watch of Virginia were looking for Bigfoot in the Allegheny Mountain highlands of the Dolly Sods Wilderness Area in West Virginia. The group didn't have a sighting, but they did take footprint casts.

I was a huge Bigfoot fan when I was a kid. For some reason, Bigfoot was huge in the 70s. Sunday morning had Bigfoot and Wildboy (1977):



And in 1976 the Bionic Man had a big fight with Bigfoot (and we found out, during the fight, that Bigfoot was actually a robot! Man, was I surprised as a kid.):



A lot of this craze was probably kicked off by the famous Patterson-Gimlin film which came out in 1967, the year I was born:



I ate this stuff up as a kid. I hunted for Bigfoot in the Pennsylvania woods behind my grandparents house. I read books about Bigfoot. I even tried to convince my friends that Bigfoot lived in our neighborhood by walking around in the snow late at night in Bigfoot snowshoes, a Christmas present I asked for, that looked kind of like this:



Now you might be wondering, what does Bigfoot have to do with psychology and religion? Well, my very first published paper after getting my PhD was an examination of how beliefs in the paranormal (e.g., ESP, aliens, Bigfoot) relate to beliefs in the supernatural (e.g., God, angels, miracles). At times these seem very similar, like seeing Jesus in a piece of toast:



Or the paranoia and conspiracy theory similarities between alien abduction accounts and the Left Behind series. It's these similarities that drive people like Dennett, Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens crazy.

So is there a difference between believing in Bigfoot versus believing in angels? Or even God? I can't say that my study shed a lot of light on the issue, but I don't think I've ever stopped asking that question and pondering the answers.

Some thoughts and links to get us all in the Halloween spirit:

1)
Halloween is full of monsters. As I've written about before, monsters are often hybrids. A fun and colorful illustration of this is this mythical creatures Venn diagram. Check it out.

2)
George forwarded me this very good article about monsters and our moral imagination. Here are the concluding paragraphs from Stephen Asma's article:

My own view is that the concept of monster cannot be erased from our language and thinking. It cannot be replaced by other more polite terms and concepts, because it still refers to something that has no satisfactory semantic substitute or refinement. The term's imprecision, within parameters, is part of its usefulness. Terms like "monster" and "evil" have a lot of metaphysical residue on them, left over from the Western traditions. But even if we neuter the term from obscure theological questions about Cain, or metaphysical questions about demons, the language still successfully expresses a radical frustration over the inhumanity of some enemy. The meaning of "monster" is found in its context, in its use.

So this Halloween season, let us, by all means, enjoy our fright fest, but let's not forget to take monsters seriously, too. I'll be checking under my bed, as usual. But remember, things don't strike fear in our hearts unless our hearts are already seriously committed to something (e.g., life, limb, children, ideologies, whatever). Ironically then, inhuman threats are great reminders of our own humanity. And for that we can all thank our zombies.

3)
Remember when churches used to host haunted houses? I remember having them in my church as a kid and teen. Then the 80s happened and the Christian community collectively freaked out about Satanism, backmasking, and Halloween. No more haunted houses, but plenty of "fall festivals" (a Christian euphemism for "Halloween party"). But have you see the Judgment Houses? These are Christianized versions of haunted houses. The basic script has you witness the death of a wayward teen and then follow him/her through a room-by-room tour of hell. At the end of the tour, properly sobered and scared, you get a chance to accept Jesus into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior. It's a delightful evangelism tool. Numerous clips of judgment houses can be found on YouTube.

4)
Last night I watched a bit of John Carpenter's 1978 Halloween on TV. Halloween is generally regarded as the movie that launched the slasher film genre (early examples include Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th with the Saw series as a recent incarnation). As I watched the show I surfed the web about the movie (I often do this) and discovered that one of the influences of Halloween upon subsequent slasher movies is the trope of "the survival of the virgins." From the Wikipedia entry: In these films "characters who practice illicit sex and substance abuse generally meet a gruesome end at the hands of the killer. On the other hand, female characters portrayed as chaste and temperate tend to confront and defeat the killer in the end."

Now what is that all about? Is the survival of the virgins some odd longing for a morally comprehensible universe? A way to scare teens into chastity and sobriety? A form of patriarchy intended to scare young girls into keeping their virginity?

I found this to be extraordinarily moving. It was a part of testimony given for and against Maine's marriage equality bill on April 22, 2009. Hat Tip to Andrew Sullivan.

Jim and Pam got married this week on The Office.

Some thoughts on the wedding.

If you saw the episode you know what is coming. Jim and Pam's Office mates hijack their wedding by imitating Jill and Kevin's wedding which became, and remains, a YouTube sensation.

Here is that real life video:



This is what I love about that video. The eschaton is often compared to a wedding, the wedding of the Lamb with the church. And if you are like me, and have been to a few weddings, that metaphor is kind of depressing. Our modern American ceremonies don't seem to capture the eschatological joy the biblical writers were aiming for. But I think Jill and Kevin's wedding comes very close. That is an eschatological wedding!

Following suit, here's what The Office did with their wedding:



Theologically, I love The Office take on this. First, it captures the eschatological joy of Kevin and Jill's wedding. But more than this, I love how it's full of freaks. All these odd, strange and weird people from the lives of Jim and Pam. I love the messy, inclusive vision it presents. It's joyous but a bit, well, unruly given the kinds of people involved.

The most important point, for me, about The Office wedding is how Jim and Pam figure out a way to give it away to their friends. The wedding is no longer for them, but for their friends, for those invited to the wedding as guests. Secure in their marriage on the boat Pam and Jim are free to give the ceremony away.

I think there is an important lesson here for the church. Too often the ceremony, ritual and life of the church is for us. And, as a consequence, the life of the church is often dry, uninspired and lacking spontaneous joy. Worse, it is inhospitable. The church doesn't give itself away to welcome others. The life of the church is for the church, not for the world. But it is not supposed to be that way. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer has said, "The church is the church only when it exists for others."

So what might it mean if the church, like Pam and Jim, gave her life and ceremony away for the sake of the world?

I'm not a dog person. Nor is Jana. Neither of us grew up with dogs or pets. So we always found the dogs of our friends just plain offensive. Nothing about dog ownership seemed attractive to us. Dogs annoyed us. The smells, the hair, the slobbering, the barking, the messes they make, the jumping on you. Who would ever want to have a dog? We just didn't get it.

Then we had children. Two boys. Two boys who wanted a dog. But we just couldn't oblige.

So we tried a fish. But it's hard to love a fish. Plus, the lifespan of a fish meant that we were constantly in a state of grief. Many tears around the toilet.

So we tried to scale up to something furry. A real warm-blooded mammal. A rodent, specifically. Jana thought she was shopping for a hamster or gerbil. Instead she came home with a rat. And, as an experimental psychologist, I thought that fitting.

But our rat Oreo died within a week. Back to the tears and the Kubler-Ross Stages of Grief. So we bought another rat. And we had two good years with Chai.

But a rat is not a dog. Obviously. And after Chai died Jana and I, for the first time, started thinking about getting a dog. For the boys.

Given that we basically hated dogs we set out to find a dog that we could tolerate. It had to be an inside dog. We didn't want a dog digging up the backyard and chronically dirty. It couldn't be a toy dog. Not a freak of nature that fits in a purse. It couldn't shed because of Jana's allergies. It had to have a wonderful, submissive and friendly temperament.

This list was long because we knew we'd hate this dog. We just wanted to make it the least offensive dog it could be. Anything in the dog's favor would help it.

Still, we couldn't believe we were contemplating this action. And yet, there we were summer before last picking up Bandit from the breeder as we drove through Tennessee. We were officially dog owners.

Bandit has been a part of the family for over a year now. And everyday I look at him and declare to Jana, "I can't believe I like this dog." Yes, we are dog owners, and in some amazing act of grace we are loving it. We love Bandit. Even when he chews up the carpet, vomits, or makes a mess in the house. And, given all this, I just can't understand why I love him. This was the stuff I was dreading. This is why I didn't want a dog. But I love Bandit.

Why?

Well, this is my best explanation. Bandit's a little bit of the Day. He's a foretaste of the eschaton. I love Bandit because he's my eschatological dog.

Every morning when I take Bandit outside I love to see him run, romp and jump in the backyard. I love watching him chase squirrels, birds and bugs. I look up from my morning prayers and just smile at the sight of him. Watching Bandit run and play brings me, well, joy.

Why is that? Again, I think it's a foretaste of that final culmination when all of Creation begins to sing in unison. In Bandit I have a little taste of Eden, that memory and hope when Adam and Eve walked among and named the beasts of the field and the birds of the air. Watching Bandit, watching this animal, brings me inexplicable joy. Why does watching him play make me happy? My only answer is that he's an eschatological dog.

It's the same feeling I get when he greets me at the door or falls asleep at my feet while I type away at this blog. There's a feeling, new to me, about living with an animal. And something feels right about it.

Plus, I rediscovered in Bandit those feelings I had when the boys were babies. That feeling of snuggling and cuddling. The baby-talk is back in the house. And I love that feeling. That softness in me when I care for something small, expectant and weak. I love having that softness back in my heart. I didn't know I missed it. Or needed it.

And the only explanation I have for all this is that something in the connection between me and this animal is a moment of grace. It is a feeling of something that was, perhaps, once lost, but is, definitely, the way I want it all to be. The Day. The eschaton. When all of creation, like Bandit and our family, is brought back into that place of peace, love and praise.

H/T to Mel for sending me the picture. It goes nicely with our posts on disgust and contamination.

On Sunday it was my privilege to preach at our church. The title of the sermon was taken from Matthew 9: "Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'"

The podcast can be found here.

The sermon was the fusion of two of my recent posts. The first half of the sermon was a version of my The Bait and Switch of Contemporary Christianity post and the second half was my meditation on the Amsterdam flies and paying attention.

Four "moral situations" from Haidt, Koller & Dias (1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 613-628:

1) A woman is cleaning out her closet, and she finds her old American flag. She doesn’t want the flag anymore, so she cuts it up into pieces and uses the rags to clean her bathroom.

2) A family’s dog was killed by a car in front of their house. They had heard that dog meat was delicious, so they cut up the dog’s body and cooked it and ate it for dinner.

3) A brother and sister like to kiss each other on the mouth. When nobody is around, they find a secret hiding place and kiss each other on the mouth.

4) A man goes to the supermarket once a week and buys a dead chicken. But before cooking the chicken, he has sexual intercourse with it. Then he thoroughly cooks it and eats it.

Do these things seem wrong to you? Most would say yes. But let me ask you a question, what is, exactly, wrong with each? That is, without simply restating the problem (e.g., that’s unpatriotic, you shouldn’t eat your dog, brothers and sisters should not kiss, etc.), what moral principle is being violated in each situation?

If you are like most people, you’ll find it hard to locate a moral or ethical principle being violated in each scenario. Yet, without a doubt, we know and feel that each scenario is wrong. As I've written about before, this feeling, the strong sense of wrongness while being at a loss for a moral argument, is called "moral dumbfounding" in Jonathan Haidt's interesting research.

For our purposes Haidt's research nicely illustrates the fissure between System 1 and System 2 in our moral judgments. Specifically, in Haidt's scenarios the "feeling of wrongness" is immediately activated by System 1. It's an automatic appraisal. The "reason for wrongness" is a System 2 search. And Haidt cleverly selected his scenarios to flummox that search. A feeling of wrongness exists in System 1 while System 2 spins its wheels to provide reasons, justifications, bible verses, rationales, and warrants for that judgment.

The shocking thing about Haidt's research is that it tends to turn our understanding of moral judgements upside down. Specifically, we tend to think that reasons drive our moral feelings. I judge that X is wrong and, as a consequence, feel that it is wrong. Cognition precedes emotion. Judgment causes feeling.

But Haidt's research suggests that this just might be backwards. Emotion precedes cognition. Feeling causes judgment. We feel something to be wrong and then go in search for a reason. Moral warrants (the stuff of an ethics class) are, essentially, post hoc justifications. And, for most of us, we operate with a "good enough" search criteria. That is, people, seeking to justify their knee jerk moral judgements, generally land upon warrants that provide "just enough" justification. Doesn't matter if these judgements are logically consistent or coherent upon inspection, all that matters is that they quickly help us reconcile our feelings with our self-concepts. This is why moral reasoning, as any philosopher can tell you, is generally so poor and unreflective. The reason is that moral reasoning isn't creating our moral judgments. What generally passes for "moral reasoning" is simply a quickly marshaled justification (for you and me) for why I feel the way I do. I'm not really offering an argument of any kind, although I'd like for you to think that I am. In short, for the most part moral reasoning is painted, as a kind of cognitive decoration, upon an underlying, unshakable conviction. No wonder moral or political discourse is so broken. Emotions are driving the car. All the talking at town halls is just so much verbiage. People already know what they believe. Or, more properly, they feel it. Deep in their bones. And words just don't penetrate.

In short, we are back to the conflict between System 1 and System 2. System 1 is driving our moral judgments. As a consequence, argument has a difficult time affecting moral judgments.

So can we change, morally speaking? Yes, just not through sharing reasons. The only way to change System 1 is to change emotionally and experientially. When your feelings change then you begin to prefer different kinds of moral warrants. Your heart has softened in some way and what previously sounded persuasive no longer moves you. It doesn't ring true. And some verses in the bible now seem cold and distant while others seem warm and alive.

Are you a racist?

Okay, that's probably too harsh a question. I'm just trying to get your attention. Let's ask something more subtle:

Are you prejudiced?

That is, do you have negative stereotypes about ethnic groups, gays, Muslims, genders or other groups?

Here's the deal. You can't really answer these questions.

The reason has to do with the cognitive systems we've been talking about in the last few posts. Prejudice and stereotypes are driven by System 1, the system that is fast, unconscious and automatic. This is also the system that is largely walled off from introspection. So when I ask you if you are prejudiced what you end up doing is searching System 2, the conscious repository of our values, morals and ideals. And when you consult that repository of course it tends to look like you are not prejudiced. That is, when you consult System 2 this is what you find:

I believe, given my values, that it is wrong to be prejudiced.

I have as a goal for myself not to be prejudiced.

I consciously try not to be prejudiced.

Note, however, none of this tells us if we actually are prejudiced. Values, goals and desires don't necessarily translate into action. How many of us value, desire and set goals for more healthy living? Think of those New Year resolutions. A moment of reflection reveals that not wanting to be prejudiced has little bearing upon actually being prejudiced.

The reason for this is simple. Introspection only penetrates System 2. But prejudice is produced by System 1. You're self-analyzing the wrong system.

But how could you ever analyze an unconscious system? You can't rely upon introspection. You need something that assesses our quick, automatic appraisals. The "blink" of Malcolm Gladwell's book. How do we assess blinks? Enter the Implicit Association Test (IAT).

The IAT was developed by Harvard psychologists to test for the strength of implicit (i.e., System 1) associations, good and bad, for different targeted stimuli. The first test assessed Good/Bad associations for race. Since then a whole host of tests are available for associations regarding obesity, old age, and religion. You can take one of these many tests by going to Project Implicit at the Harvard host site. Click on the link and take one of the tests.

If you take an IAT you see what it does. It assesses reaction time as you sort a target category (e.g., White faces vs. Black faces) along with an attribute (e.g., Good vs. Bad). What the test reveals in the racial version of the IAT is that, generally for white people, when "Good" attributes are paired with "White" faces our ability to classify is improved (assessed as mean reaction time over the repeated trials) relative to the trials when "Good" attributes are paired with "Black" faces. In other words, we find it easier to associate White/Good and Black/Bad relative to when we have White/Bad and Black/Good pairings. We implicitly associate whiteness with goodness and blackness with badness. You don't know you do this (again, introspection is no help) but the test reveals that, in fact, you do.  

(Incidentally, you probably noted that IAT works because of the Stroop Effect. That is, "good" when paired with white faces is easy while "good" paired with black faces creates the interference of the Stroop Effect.)

The IAT has important implications for spiritual and moral formation. Specifically, church people tend to lean too heavily upon introspection. Church people very often want to be good people which leads them to assume that they are good people. In short, too many Christians think they are good when, in fact, they are not. We call this hypocrisy.

And it's not a willful hypocrisy. Just a mindless one. A failure to understand that values, goals, and desires are not necessary and sufficient conditions for being a good person.  Once again, the fissure between the two cognitive systems has risen up and bitten us.