Opposites Repel
While hiking I "saw" an analogy between statistics and morality. All (and more) of what follows occurred to me in a moment, and it made me chuckle. God is truly amazing; the things of Life are remarkably simple in a way that is terribly complicated to explain.
Both settings, hypothesis testing and moral behavior, contain evaluations that appear to involve opposites that are not strict opposites.
Hypothesis testing looks at the quality of a decision, being concerned with whether a decision was correct or not. The two commonly discussed error types are these:
Because good and bad are direct opposites (complements) these two error types appear to be opposites, but they are not. In fact, I can take actions to reduce my chances of making the first mistake which at the same time increase my chances of making the second. I can take actions that reduce chances of BOTH mistakes. So, while they are related things (these two kinds of mistakes), they are not opposites.
So with human goodness. Ultimately, goodness means being like God, behaving as God would have us behave. Badness (evil), therefore, is on the opposite side of that scale, being less and less like God, behaving contrary to how God would have us behave. Our efforts in good behavior can be approached in two ways, both imperfect:
Once again, because good and bad are direct opposites (complements), these two approaches appear to be opposites. In this case, however, something more subtle happens. The second kind of action is a double-negative, so it gives the very deceiving appearance of being a positive good. And if it is a positive good, isn't "Avoid bad" equivalent to "Do good?" No, it isn't. But there is another deception built around this apparent symmetry which has become an equivalence. If “Do good” and “Avoid bad” are equivalent, why not ignore the second and put all of one’s limited resources into doing good? Because, as with hypothesis testing errors, I can do things to maximize one of these that minimizes the other; I can also maximize or minimize both. They are related, but not opposites.
The analogy with statistics amuses me, being an uncommon, even weird entry point to the very common experience of choosing how to behave. Being common, even mundane, it is that much harder to see, so the weird entry point puts it into sharper relief.
So what can be learned from this? Quite simply that both are necessary, that neither can be had merely by pursuing the other. Do good AND avoid bad. But for you who catch subtleties there’s more (isn't there always?). Being good, while it does involve DOING good, is not the same as doing good and avoiding bad. Being good IS being closer to God, which involves all of you—actions, relationships, attitudes, and everything else that makes you human. Bottom line, being good is a God thing.
Both settings, hypothesis testing and moral behavior, contain evaluations that appear to involve opposites that are not strict opposites.
Hypothesis testing looks at the quality of a decision, being concerned with whether a decision was correct or not. The two commonly discussed error types are these:
- Accepting as “good” what isn't
- Rejecting as “bad” what isn't
Because good and bad are direct opposites (complements) these two error types appear to be opposites, but they are not. In fact, I can take actions to reduce my chances of making the first mistake which at the same time increase my chances of making the second. I can take actions that reduce chances of BOTH mistakes. So, while they are related things (these two kinds of mistakes), they are not opposites.
So with human goodness. Ultimately, goodness means being like God, behaving as God would have us behave. Badness (evil), therefore, is on the opposite side of that scale, being less and less like God, behaving contrary to how God would have us behave. Our efforts in good behavior can be approached in two ways, both imperfect:
- Do good
- Avoid bad
Once again, because good and bad are direct opposites (complements), these two approaches appear to be opposites. In this case, however, something more subtle happens. The second kind of action is a double-negative, so it gives the very deceiving appearance of being a positive good. And if it is a positive good, isn't "Avoid bad" equivalent to "Do good?" No, it isn't. But there is another deception built around this apparent symmetry which has become an equivalence. If “Do good” and “Avoid bad” are equivalent, why not ignore the second and put all of one’s limited resources into doing good? Because, as with hypothesis testing errors, I can do things to maximize one of these that minimizes the other; I can also maximize or minimize both. They are related, but not opposites.
The analogy with statistics amuses me, being an uncommon, even weird entry point to the very common experience of choosing how to behave. Being common, even mundane, it is that much harder to see, so the weird entry point puts it into sharper relief.
So what can be learned from this? Quite simply that both are necessary, that neither can be had merely by pursuing the other. Do good AND avoid bad. But for you who catch subtleties there’s more (isn't there always?). Being good, while it does involve DOING good, is not the same as doing good and avoiding bad. Being good IS being closer to God, which involves all of you—actions, relationships, attitudes, and everything else that makes you human. Bottom line, being good is a God thing.
Comments
Post a Comment