In Defense of Traditional Marriage

The world’s major cultural and religious traditions have historically understood marriage as having three components: (1) a comprehensive union of spouses—man and wife, (2) an orientation towards procreation and childrearing, and (3) moral norms of exclusivity, honor, and permanence.[i] This relationship is special and tremendously beneficial for society and individuals. This relationship has a name: marriage. Recognizing the unique and important benefits of this relationship, government used the name, marriage, in the law to furnish support and incentives in favor of that special relationship. Other relationships, like friendship, also benefit society. However, their benefits are not identical or co-extensive to those of marriage. In truth, cohabitation has some of the benefits of marriage, but not all; friendship has some of the benefits of marriage, but not all, etc. So, we give other relationships different names and fashion policies as a function of those similarities and differences. Family is the fundamental social unit and building block of a prosperous society and marriage is the foundation upon which the family rests.

            It is true that marriage has changed over time. Polygamy has been outlawed. Interracial marriage is legal. We no longer pay dowries or plan marriages in advance. However, all of these changes did not affect the fundamental definition of marriage and they had a sort of economic logic about them.

            Today, the special relationship of marriage is under attack. The law and the media condone the ideas that marriage can be less than a comprehensive union of spouses, that the procreative and childrearing orientation of marriage is immaterial, and that marriage need not be exclusive, respectful, or permanent. Since marriage is under attack, I find myself compelled to defend it from those who would seek to strip this special relationship of its rightful title: marriage. In this post, I will address some of the prominent forces corroding the strength of marriage in America and offer some solutions. 

A. No Fault Divorce

            Today, it is easier to get a divorce than it is to fire a manifestly poor teacher. Before the enactment of no fault divorce laws, getting a divorce was processed through the adversarial court system. A divorce could only be obtained through a showing of fault such as abuse, adultery, abandonment, felony, or other seriously culpable conduct. Many American legal professionals thought that too many people were perjuring themselves in open court to obtain a divorce.  Today, there might be less lying in court, but just as much in divorce proceedings. Advocates for no fault divorce feared that the legitimacy of the court was in danger. Many academics depicted struggling married couples as having the binary choice of living in “marital hell” or lying under oath to obtain a divorce. Obviously, there is another option left out of their arguments: fix what’s broken. In addition, advocates of no fault divorce argue that men are more likely to behave in marriage knowing their wife can break it off for any or no reason and that arbitrary decisions of courts would be avoided. No fault divorce advocates assured policymakers that the impact on families and children would be minimal. But, they were wrong.

            After a century of stable and low divorce rates, divorces increased drastically within a decade of enacting no fault divorce laws. Several studies and published papers support the consensus that no fault divorce was a major factor in the increasing divorce rates of the last decades. No fault divorce is frequently economically inefficient. Legal marriage can be terminated unilaterally at will, when he or she thinks it will benefit him or herself. Thus, unilateral divorces are frequently selfish and opportunistic. Unilateral divorces leave fathers unwillingly separated from their children and single mothers left in poverty. No fault divorce has increased female poverty rates (homemakers are most disadvantaged), the number of children being left unsupervised during the day, and the number of children being reared in single-parent homes.  The effects of divorce on children are straightforward and clearly visible in statistics. Children with divorced parents are more likely to have pathologies, more likely to be involved with crime, more likely to become pregnant as teenagers, less likely to perform well in school, and have less success financially later on in their lives. No fault divorce has undoubtedly increased the numbers of disadvantaged children in the United States.  

            Marriage is more than a contract. However, it is also a contract. Promises are made to be kept. Legal contracts are made to be enforced. No fault divorce makes the marriage contract effectively no contract at all. The notion that a mother could properly renounce her motherhood seems ridiculous to most people. A mother and her child are family. A mother is always responsible for caring for her child. Similarly, when a man and a woman marry, they form a new family and they make solemn covenants with one another. Spouses’ responsibilities to one another are equally permanent and important as the responsibilities of parents to their children. The law should give effect to the marriage promises and protect the unwilling partner. Marriage is a choice for which we should be permanently responsible.

            No fault divorce rests on the false assumption that marriage is only for lovers, a private matter, and not for parenthood or children. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead sums up the wide affects of no fault divorce:

Divorce is not simply a legal mechanism for dissolving marriage but a social and cultural force that opportunistically reproduces itself everywhere. A high divorce society is a society marked by growing division and separation in its social arrangements, a society of single mothers and vanquished fathers, of divided households and split parenting, of fractured parent-child bonds and fragmented families, of broken links between marriage and parenthood. The shift from a family world governed by the institution of marriage to one ruled by divorce has brought a steady weakening of primary human relationships and bonds. Men’s and women’s relationships are becoming more fleeting and unreliable. Children are losing their ties to their fathers. Even a mother’s love is not forever, as the growing number of throwaway kids suggests.

The divorce culture is at the root of numerous social ills—a society of individualists with less commitment and more selfishness. Too often, families are ripped apart for selfish, shortsighted, impatient, and shallow reasons. Indeed, since marriage is so easily broken off, courting couples need not take the decision as seriously as they should.

            The proper solution to the no fault divorce issue is to appropriately balance the government interests of relieving some of the suffering of marital failure with the more compelling interest of promoting marital stability. Divorce should not be achievable unilaterally without a showing of fault. Bilateral divorce should not be obtainable without mediation and counseling. In the absence of abuse, adultery, or felony, courts should inquire as to whether one or both parties have engaged in such misconduct as to permanently and seriously hinder the ability of the couple to function as a family. “It is not only large affairs, which produce trouble. The continuance of overbearing and vexatious petty treatment of one partner by another frequently is more serious in its disruptive character than would be larger differences, which would be discussed and settled.”[ii] The fines and punishments for perjury, collusion, and fraud should be severe.

B. Portrayals of “Marriage” and Romance in the Media

            Television shows, films, music, and pop literature are not all bad. The very presence of romantic themes in the media is not the problem. It is the message the media sends about romance and sex (and violence for that matter). Hollywood and the media industry too often condone one-night stands, shallow relationships, sex before marriage, immodesty, unrealistic romance, etc. Hollywood focuses disproportionately on youth and often promotes consumerism—fancy cars, expensive clothing, bling, etc. Vile pornography is a multibillion-dollar industry and is available to anyone at the click of a button; in fact, around a third of boys report it is their main source of sex education.  Reality shows are harmfully unreal. The celebrated lives of celebrities are disproportionately plagued by selfish romance and divorce. Certainly, Hollywood and the media industry too often corrode healthy and moral understandings of sex, procreation, marriage, family, and love.  

            Pornography must be regulated. Otherwise, I haven’t any thought out legal solutions to dispense with sponsorship of immorality in the media. Perhaps this can only be defeated by a change in consumer demand and by raising our voice.

C. Same-sex Marriage

            Marriage, as an institution, is about more than affection. Marriage is about preparing for and rearing children. Proponents of same-sex marriage are not oriented towards procreation and thus, the benefits of same-sex union are automatically not co-extensive and equal to those of traditional marriages. Those who seek to revise the definition of marriage frequently argue that same-sex marriage will have no effect on the strength of traditional marriage. Just like the past proponents of no fault divorce who made the same argument, they are wrong. No fault divorce and the media often promote the notion that marriage is all about affection. Same-sex marriage would add to that harmful advocacy. Affection is an emotion. Marriages based solely on emotion will be more instable (as emotions are) than marriages with an orientation towards childrearing. No man is an island. The law affects the public’s view of morality and is especially detrimental to the less educated, broken families, or otherwise disadvantaged demographic. As long as true marriage is supported by policy, love, knowledge, success, virtue, and strength will accumulate in families. Children deserve to be born into a stable marriage. Children born to married parents, who stay married, outperform their peers in every (or almost every) measurement of wellbeing and success. Extended families with low divorce rates are more cohesive and successful. When marriage is about parenthood as much as it is about affection, more children will be born into this advantageous situation. But, when marriage is based only on affection, there will be more divorce, less unified families, less responsible procreation, and more children disadvantaged by instability of their family—such will lead to higher crime rates, poorer educational outcomes, poorer economic productivity, etc.

            The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to two cases dealing with same-sex marriage. Presumably, any justices who seek to declare same-sex marriage as a constitutional right will invoke the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clauses enacted in the Fourteenth Amendment: “[No] state [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Where the Equal Protection Clause or Due Process Clause is at issue, the courts will apply one of three levels of scrutiny: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny (the latter two being “heightened scrutiny”). Under current jurisprudence, the Equal Protections Clause triggers heightened scrutiny when the government, through “prejudice,” differentiates people who are “insular” or “discrete” minorities unable to avail themselves of the political process. The “Substantive” Due Process Clause triggers heightened scrutiny where a “fundamental right” is denied a person.

            The current jurisprudence of “heightened scrutiny” is a result of judicial activism and sham judicial opinions. One of the fundamental objectives of the Constitution was to separate political powers between the three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. Where the executive and legislative branches’ powers overlap, the Constitution addresses it specifically (e.g. veto and overriding the veto). However, there is no overlap between the judicial and legislative. The prerogative of judges is to interpret the law as it is made by the legislature.  All legal instruments, including the Constitution, statutes, and contracts, are to be enforced as understood by the drafting parties.

            In truth, substantive due process is an oxymoron. Substantive and procedural rights are separate. Procedural rights constitute the right to a fair and speedy trial. The notion that the Due Process Clause has substantive rights—e.g. the right to marry, the right to contract, etc—has no basis in the language of the Constitution or the Clause’s pre-constitutional history. Judges can, almost without limit, declare anything they want to be a right according to their own political views so long as it can be associated, however tangentially, with some explicit right granted by the Constitution. Substantive due process, in addition, has an ignoble history. Judicial activist judges used it in Dred Scott (holding that slaveholders had a legal right to own their slaves perpetually), Lochner, and Roe v. Wade. Substantive due process should be discarded as the sham that it is. The most important precedent is the first one—the original understanding.  The Equal Protection Clause also allows judges nearly unlimited power to legislate according to their own politics by defining what is “prejudice” and what is a meaningful differentiation, what is morality and what is mere stereotype. It too should be discarded, according to original understanding, and only minorities specifically protected by the Constitution should incur judicial review (e.g. race, nationality, and religion).

            Even with the current jurisprudence, the people’s right to define marriage as applying only to a man and a woman is the better argument. Substantive due process is not at issue because the Court has never recognized a right of same-sex marriage. Equal Protection is not triggered because anyone can marry anyone of the opposite gender in good faith. The law applies equally to everyone. The Equal Protection Clause was intended to apply to race. Same-sex attraction is not genetically immutable (see identical twin studies and genetics studies). The Court may abandon judicial restraint and announce a novel “fundamental right” to marry as one wishes or they might contort the law to assert that it somehow discriminates against persons based on gender. In either case, the advocates of traditional marriage would have to prove that opposite-gender only marriage laws support either an important or compelling government interest and that the law must be narrowly tailored to accomplish that government purpose.

            I can think of no more compelling interest than supporting the strength of biological families in the United States. As the fundamental unit of society, strong families mean lower crime, better education, more productive economy, less poverty, healthier population, and even better national defense. Strong families are a much more compelling interest that diversity in higher education, which has been held to be a compelling interest. Perhaps the best argument against limiting marriage to a man and a woman is that it allows couples with no intention of having children to marry and enjoy the benefits of marriage. Thus, the law is overbroad. However, the law only needs to be narrowly tailored—it should not need to be the least restrictive means of accomplishing the government objective. Indeed, it would be administratively ineffectual to separate those who intend or will eventually intend to procreate and those who will not.

            Marriage should be defined in the law as having three components: (1) a comprehensive union of spouses—man and wife, (2) an orientation towards procreation and childrearing, and (3) moral norms of exclusivity, honor, and permanence. Gay marriage attacks the first and second components of the definition of marriage. Marriage is a legitimate legal distinction from same-sex unions because the benefits of traditional marriage are not co-extensive or identical to those of same-sex unions. Legislatures and voters should be able to make meaningful distinctions in the law to promote welfare, morality, national security, and health.

D. Diminishing Influence of Social Institutions and Government Policy

            As a society, we are becoming increasingly more individualist and less communitarian. The generally secular government is taking up roles traditionally filled by religion, charities, and family. Multigenerational families are becoming less cohesive. The family used to provide the safety net for Americans; now, the government takes that role.  The government has many pro-family policies. However, there are other policies antagonistic to motherhood and family (e.g. the “Mommy Tax” explained by Ann Crittenden—google it). City planning is such that people can live in the suburbs, drive their own car, and have no interpersonal contact except with the occasional sales associate.

E. Radical Feminism

            Feminism that seeks to establish equal opportunity and treatment for women in the law, politics, and the workplace has my wholehearted support. However, feminism that seeks to put career above motherhood, to depict man and woman as competing, and to characterize biological differences between men and women as inconsequential is extremely problematic for the family. Such notions are unfortunate. They are scientifically and politically incoherent. Fortunately, radical feminist thinking is losing ground and is increasingly viewed as an excess of the great benefits of the feminist movements of the last century.

            In conclusion, strengthening the traditional family is the most important objective of government. Family is the foundation of the nation. Marriage is the foundation of families. Laws that incentivize and advantage the traditional, conjugal marriage achieves the objective of strengthening families more effectively than any other government policy. Marriage is the word describing a relationship with (1) a comprehensive union of spouses—man and wife, (2) an orientation towards procreation and childrearing, and (3) moral norms of exclusivity, honor, and permanence.

---

[i] See Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, & Ryan T. Anderson, What is Marriage?, 34 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 245 (2011).

[ii] Owen v. Cohen, 19 Cal.2d 147 (1941).

Capital Gains Overview

INTRODUCTION-- WHAT ARE CAPITAL GAINS?

With all the recent talk about Mitt Romney's taxes and the impending "fiscal cliff," I realized that I, as well as many people, had only a rudimentary understanding of the taxation of capital gains. Indeed, I feel many retain some misinformation on the topic.

Long-term capital assets receive preferential tax treatment under the Internal Revenue Code. Long-term capital assets are any property held for more than a year EXCEPT for property that is the normal source of business income (e.g. inventory held for sale, business equipment, office space, etc.). Perhaps the most familiar form of capital gains are those associated with stock in companies. For those realizing capital gains whose marginal tax rate is 15% or lower, they pay NO tax on capital gains (0%). For those in higher tax brackets, capital gains are taxed at a maximum rate of 15%. However, the rates on capital gains are slated to go up to 20% on December 31, 2012 unless Congress does something to change it (part of the "fiscal cliff").

PROS & CONS OF PREFERENTIAL TAX TREATMENT ON CAPITAL GAINS

Justifications advanced for the preferential treatment of long-term capital assets are generally threefold:

1. Part of the gain realized on the sale of capital assets represents inflation. Thus, although the market price of property increases after ten years, the true value has not after factoring in inflation. Taxes should be lower on capital gains to take inflation into account.

2. Lower taxes on capital gains incentivizes responsible savings. 

3. Preferential tax treatment of capital gains makes for mobile capital and more efficient markets. Lower taxes on capital gains makes it easier for investors to take money out of stagnant or failing companies and put it into more promising businesses. Lower capital gains taxes helps socially beneficial or popular enterprises raise capital.

But, there are strong counterarguments too:

1. Differentiating gains and losses as capital or ordinary requires complex and hard to understand regulations. The administration of preferential treatment of capital gains, this argument goes, is too expensive and cumbersome to be worth it. Opponents of lower taxes on capital gains argue that there are better ways to accomplish the purposes of favorable capital gains treatment. For example, tax bases can be adjusted for inflation. 

2. The strongest repost of opponents is that favoring capital gains is just not fair. Only those with lots of capital with which to invest have capital gains. In 2010, the top 1% of income earners realized over 70% of the capital gains.

SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGE

Regressive Capital Gains Tax: Clayton Christiansen of the Harvard Business School, and others, suggest taxing capital gains regressively over time. In other words, the longer you hold on to an investment, the lower the tax rate should be on that investment. He believes that the relatively minor loss in tax revenues for the government ($38 billion in 2012) are well worth the increase in capital available for job creation and innovation. Indeed, many or probably most economists agree that lower capital gains increase revenues in the long run through quickened economic growth. But, this notion is challenged. The true effects of high and low capital gains rates are hard to measure because there are so many other historical factors that affect the state of the economy. Evidence seems to support and deny the benefits of low taxes on capital gains.

No Capital Gains Tax: There are many voices calling for the government to stop collecting taxes on capital gains entirely. This would have effects on businesses' choice of entity (i.e. pass-through entities like LLC or LPs may lose importance) which may require some legislative tweaking; but, would increase capital mobility and, in theory, make for a more efficient market.

No Preferential Treatment for Capital Gains: Another option would be to tax all gains at the ordinary rates. Whether a gain is realized on stock or through lending services, the tax on income would be the same. This would raise government revenues and make for more equality and result in more fairness. After all, why should income from labor be taxed more than income from investments in big corporations.

Comprehensive Change: Perhaps my idea would be to alter the entire structure of the Code. I would widen the base and flatten the taxes for all but those making more than $5 million per year except for income from patent and copyright royalties. The rate could then be steeper from there. I would do away with a number of counterproductive tax subsidies. I would cut spending and regulation. Perhaps I will elaborate my nascent tax plan in a forthcoming post. 

Correcting First Amendment Jurisprudence

The four traditional police powers of government are to protect public health, safety, welfare, and morality. In American law, the police powers are legitimate and even compelling justifications for government legislation and regulation. Usually, government exercises of the police powers can pass any level of judicial scrutiny. Within these realms, the courts do not challenge the legislature or executive branches in their capacity to regulate behavior and enforce social order.

However, some courts have explicitly rejected the power of government to protect citizens' morality. Courts began to embrace moral relativism in the context of pornography and indecency cases under the First Amendment.

In Cohen v. California (1971), the Supreme Court heard a case about a man, Cohen, who had been convicted under a California statute prohibiting anyone from "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct." Cohen had worn a jacket that prominently displayed the phrase "F*** the Draft" in a government building with children. Although the Court could have held narrowly on the unconstitutional overbreadth of the California statute, it articulated a broader ruling. The Court held that California cannot censor profanity in public places because "one man's vulgarity is another man's lyric." Such a holding seems to endorse an almost unlimited personal autonomy. It chants the selfish mantra, "you can do whatever you want, so long as you don't hurt anyone." Justice Burger, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Black dissented in part because they (correctly) asserted that we do not "live in a world so incapable of communication that it can be said that 'one man's vulgarity is another's lyric.'"

More recently, Justices Kennedy and O'Connor seem to have accepted moral relativism by asserting that the Court cannot rule on morality in cases dealing with abortion and same-gender sex (Lawrence v. Texas; Planned Parenthood v. Casey). But, I will keep the scope of this post to the First Amendment.

Judge Robert Bork criticized the Court's capricious admission of moral relativity in, among others, the Cohen case. He points out that moral distinctions stand at the very foundation of the law. If it were not for morality, law could be established in very few areas, "[a]fter all, one man's larceny is another man's just distribution of goods." Moral relativism as a formula for justifying and fashioning the law is totally vapid. A change in deeply entrenched and widely accepted moral environment is harmful.

One of the chief objections to Bork's critique of moral relativism in the judiciary is that, with Cohen, the Court was not dealing with regulations of Conduct like larceny, but speech, which has special status under the Constitution. This seems to me to be a widely accepted tenant of First Amendment theory. That, somehow, speech, as a right, is superior to other rights because it is memorialized in the First Amendment. First Amendment jurisprudence demonstrates a belief that the First Amendment enthrones speech and self-expression as higher than all other values save health, safety, and financial well-being of others. Since Judge Stone penned the famous footnote four of the United States v. Carolene Products case, rights specifically mentioned the Constitution have been blindly treated as superior to other rights.

I refute this notion. I believe most all of the founding fathers would heartily agree. The purpose of the First Amendment was not to give speech superior status relevant to other rights, but to declare the status of speech as a right where it had previously been treated only as a privilege in the law. Thus, speech is on no greater footing than other rights and must be balanced against other rights. Whether Cohen's "absurd and immature" form of protesting the Vietnam War can be regulated, I am not decided. However, the Court proceeded incorrectly, and in so doing, set dangerous precedent. Rather than proceeding on the assumption that no morality exists, the Court should have recognized the rights of parents to steer their children away from such indecency or the right of persons to function normally in society without having their moral sensibilities accosted. Then, the Court should weigh the rights of the speaker against the rights of the audience to come to a conclusion. Judicial consideration should take into account the justifications for free expression, asking: (1) Does the speech have a positive or negative affect on the marketplace of ideas, as a step to truth? (2) Does the speech have importance in checking government abuse or in sustaining a healthy democracy? And, (3) how important is the person's interest in autonomy and self-expression as compared with the opposing party's rights.

Although we may dispute the definition of moral good at the margins, there are certain ubiquitous virtues that should define the contours of the law. We may disagree about exactly what it means to be kind. But, virtually every society across time and geography values kindness and dishonors cruelty or selfishness. Rather than shun morality, Courts should sculpt the contours of the law around fundamental principles of morality.

Americans have the right to pursue a broadly virtuous life without being unduly burdened. While we can argue at the margins of what it means to be good; there is a central core in the American tradition of what it means to be virtuous: wise, courageous, kind, temperate, and transcendent. Our freedom of expression cannot be superior to the right to live normally without being exposed to a waterfall of profanity, lustful nudity, gratuitous violence, outright lies, and verbal abuse. Our policies must support virtue. Or, we will lose virtue. Benjamin Franklin understood well the results of a morally relativistic citizenry when he said, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

Neuroscience, the Mind, and Self-Improvement

Source

It is his capacity for self-improvement and self-redemption which most distinguishes man from the mere brute.

- Aung San Suu Kyi

Neuroscience fascinates me. The brain is so mysterious and marvelous. One of the age-old questions posed by students of the mind is whether our consciousness and body are distinct entities or whether they are actually the same thing. Monism is probably the most popular school of thought today and holds that our consciousness is a phenomena arising solely from physical processes of our brain.[i] Through science, we now know that our very consciousness, our personality, memories, hopes, and fears are inextricably linked to the few pounds of biological tissue in our craniums. When our brain changes, so do we. However, too many smart people misinterpret this fact to mean that we are simply a product of our environments. That free will does not exist. And that there is nothing more to the world than the sub-atomic particles that make up the universe, as science understands it. The worst part about this misinterpretation is that people use it as an easy excuse. They say, “I just am who I am”; "I am simply a product of physics”; “I can’t help doing wrong”; “I can’t change”; “I can’t improve.” But, they are wrong. In this post, I intend to argue that, although it is tremendously difficult, we can improve who we are and that we are ethically obligated to make the effort.

Concluding that humans are automatons from our limited scientific observation is to prematurely jump to conclusions. It under-appreciates the experience of consciousness and our inherent capacity for self-improvement. The first question then is how can we square the scientific understanding that our physical brains control our mind with how we experience ourselves as rational, free, social, political, conscious, and ethical beings. I will not be able to address this in full (I don't know the answer); but my purpose in writing this post is to debunk people’s efforts to excuse poor performance, lack of improvement, and misdeeds by saying that they are merely a product of the physics or biology. People too often underestimate our ability to change for the better; they give up on themselves too quickly.

FREEDOM AND NEUROSCIENCE

I propose a sort of limited dualism wherein there are two realms of existence: physical and spiritual. On one level, they are all one kind of matter and I am making a false dichotomy; but, in another sense, they are separate. On Earth, we observe primarily the physical matter. Science does not yet comprehend the spiritual and how or how much it interacts with the physical. The belief that there are other kinds of matter we do not yet comprehend is not unprecedented. For the past few hundred years, science has discovered different kinds of matter and different subdivisions of matter. We learned that everything is made of atoms, then that atoms were made of subatomic particles. Then we learned that subatomic particles are composed of quarks, leptons and force carriers (but, what are quarks made of?). We have also discovered a matter that does not share space with us: anti-matter.  From observational evidence of gravity, we know that there is matter that we do not understand that accounts for much of the mass of the universe. In sum, we have not figured out the system of physics, matter, space, and time. I expect that there exists some other dimension of the system of physics that I will deem the spiritual.

In my experience, the most common objection to this view is that given the fact that physical neurobiology accounts for much of consciousness, Occam’s razor dictates monism. In essence, my opponents argue that I err in postulating another kind of matter when the physical world can be explained with reference only to the physical. But, I don’t think that the world can be explained merely through reference to the physical world. In short, I believe my opponents too easily discount epistemological experiences that have lead to my religious faith. Faith is inherently subjective. Unfortunately, I cannot share it; my consciousness is my own. I can only try to explain how I have come to faith through experience and study. I find, however, that many of my opponents actively avoid subjective evidence and value only objective evidence. They too quickly conclude that if something happens in their head, in their own subjective experience, it cannot be evidence.[ii]  It cannot be descriptive of reality. Subjective evidence or religious experience, for them, must be a false neuronal firing, cognitive bias, or a evolutionary glitch giving the illusion of purpose. I think these arguments have some merit; but not as much weight as my opponents give them. Despite the tendencies of the natural man, I feel that humility, self-awareness, and self-honesty can be more effective at diagnosing and evaluating our own knowledge than some people give credit. Sometimes, religious faith cannot be boiled down to a biologically-wired bias. Faith can be objectively rational and subjectively confirmed through so-called "supernatural" influences and self-realization.

Although we do not yet understand the neuronal basis for subjective consciousness, I expect it will be thoroughly tied to our physical brain. However, I don’t think we understand the implications of the matter making up our physical bodies and universe. Our consciousness and being somehow continue after death in a spiritual existence. The corruption of or physical bodies does not corrupt our spiritual bodies. Our experience in the physical world is recorded on physical and spiritual software, but it does not change the spiritual hardware. When we die, the recording stops (at least on the physical side). I think that, either occasionally or constantly in ways we do not yet understand, our being and experience in the spirit realm can affect our being and experience in the physical world. We may coin such influence supernatural because we do not yet understand it; but it is ultimately natural. I am not sure the extent to which this occurs and I don’t necessarily disagree that the system of physics is closed, but that my opponents too quickly draw the borders of the system too small. Like ancient cartographers who drew the edge of the world without including America, they draw the edge of the physics and neuroscience without including the spirit existence.

In essence, my reconciliation of the mind-body problem can be analogized to a sort of double-sided carbon paper (to a degree). Before photocopiers and computers, carbon paper was used to make copies of hand-written documents. On one side of the carbon paper was loosely bound dry ink or pigment. To make a copy, one would slip the leaf of carbon paper between two sheets of standard paper and, as he or she wrote on one, the pressure of the writing utensil on one side of the carbon paper would deposit the ink on the opposite sheet reproducing the original document. Similarly, my proposition here involves two kinds of matter. As we experience life on Earth it is simultaneously experienced in spirit although we only readily observe the former. And, I also believe that happenings in the spirit realm can affect the physical too.

Free will means different things to different people. I do not claim to know whether all of our volitions have predictable causes that are fixed in the past and outside ourselves (determinism) or whether some phenomenon within our beings gives flight to volition or can give flight to volition. Ultimately, I believe our minds are not magical, but comprehensible at least to God. Free will, for me, means choosing according to our fundamental preferences that are not compelled by ignorance, addiction, or other compulsion. True and full free will is only capable through knowledge and self-mastery.[iii] Human agency means more than a reaction to physical causes beginning at our birth. To say, as many philosophers do, that “we feel we are choosing, but we are not” without further elaboration is to misleadingly undervalue choice. At the very least, one must concede that our subjective consciousness cannot be reduced to objective neuronal firings. Whatever is happening, the experience of consciousness is special. It brings about a feeling and self-aware "I." Consciousness is inherently subjective and cannot be explained in 3rd person objective descriptions of neurological mechanics. We are not well served by smug self-satisfaction that comes from a disavowal of responsibility for our actions.  Even if choices are ultimately predetermined by the mechanics of the universe, the cause of our conduct is still within our being and responsibility will thus attach to us. 

NEUROSCIENCE OF SELF-IMPROVEMENT

Almost everything we do not only registers in our conscience, but physically changes our brain. This is what makes breaking bad habits so difficult. This is what makes building character and talents so demanding. Deciding to be better is not enough. It takes repetition and a network of supporting decisions to alter our neurobiology and truly change who we are. The more we make right choices, the better we become ethically and biologically. The more we cave to base temptations, the less good we become morally and physically. The brain is not static. It is more like a muscle. The more and the way we use different parts of our brain determines the physical structure of our brain. As we use our brain often and properly, it becomes more adept. If we do not use our brain or we use it the wrong way, it becomes less adept at doing good.

Some Examples:

(1) Drug addictions, pornography dependencies, overeating, and gambling dependencies have been shown to decrease the size of parts of the prefrontal cortex that correlate with self-mastery. The more we cave to yearnings for chemical pleasures from risk, lust, drugs, etc. the less our brains are equipped to deny short term pleasure for postponed, longer term, and greater pleasure.

(2) Taxi drivers have larger hippocampuses that play a role in navigation and memory.

(3) Violinists have a pronounced knob in their motor cortex for their left hand. Piano players have also been demonstrated to have an enlarged part of the brain dealing with finger coordination.

(4) The architecture of Albert Einstein’s brain had a unique parietal cortex that likely contributed to his ability to conceptualize and synthesize complex information.

The fact that our being is tied to our physical brain means that there is often an illusion of inability to change. But, change is, in fact, possible. The illusion of impossibility arises because even after we make the choice to change, temptations, tendencies, and lack of aptitude remain and only change after repetitive use of the brain in the right way. People too quickly discount preferences, tendencies, and personality traits as immutable after making a facial effort to change. Real change requires more than a single choice to change. It will frequently require a whole network of choices. The slow improvement of our physical brain, choice by choice, may involve more than any single and isolated choice. In other words, overcoming a bad habit may not be best accomplished by trying to force one’s self to affront and deny the temptation at issue. Similarly, will power alone might not be enough, in the beginning, to establish a new good habit. We have to make choices to alter our environments in such a way as to support our decision. Improvement and change has to come step by step. For example, it is probably not smart for a person addicted to tobacco to hang out with others who smoke, to see and smell tobacco. Rather, if the person is serious about quitting cigarettes, she is better served by making choices to alter her environment for a while to minimize the temptation. Eventually, her brain structure will change and the biological urge to smoke will diminish. Eventually, she may be able to see cigarettes and smell smoke and have the will power to say “no.” Another example of this principle comes from my experience in Paris. When I first began living in France, I was somewhat self-conscious about my ability to speak the language. A friend advised simply, “fake it until you make it.” I didn’t understand what he meant at first. However, by pretending I understood what I was hearing, by participating in conversations, I gave people the impression and permission to speak to me in French freely. And, people did speak to me more in French. Before I affected confidence, people would sense my nervousness or inabilities and would switch to speaking to me in English. Thus, making the decision to speak French, alone, wasn’t enough. I had to make a series of decisions, one of which was to pretend I spoke French better than I did. 

Whether the moving factor of free will lies within or without us we ultimately experience agency in a very real and subjective way. On some fundamental level, we can choose to improve. We have the tools inherently in us to improve. We can make choices that will alter the physical makeup of our brains to bring about improvement in our lives on a scale too often underestimated.  I am not asking for perfection. Just a resolution and commitment to build character and be better. To not live beneath the divinity within us. As we improve ourselves, society improves, and it becomes easier for others to improve their lives. Indeed, it is my conviction that we are not only able to fundamentally improve ourselves, we are ethically obligated. Improvement, I believe, is part of Deity's purpose for us and He has provided a way. I'll end it here with this thought, that we are capable of more change than we give ourselves credit for. Now, let's do some improving.

---

[i] The kind of monism I describe here is sometimes referred to as “materialism.” However, another sort of monism is known as idealism. Idealism holds that only the mind is real and is most closely associated with the philosophy of George Berkeley. Indeed, there is a third-view, the least popular, which holds that really all being can be reduced to one substance that is neither thought nor physical substance but something else, e.g an energy.

[ii] This reminds me of a conversation between Dumbledore and Harry Potter, which can be understood on at least a few levels, in J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: “Tell me one last thing, said Harry. Is this real? Or has this been happening inside my head? Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?”
[iii] How would you choose if you had all the relevant information and mastery over cognitive biases? Such is a free choice according to my definition.