In a previous post I talked about a conversation, and eventual email exchange, I had with a coworker. Eventually I asked him if he would like to do an email exchange concerning our views, and he accepted.
I have a general idea of my coworkers views, including biblical literalism, intelligent design, an interceding deity, etc. However, I didn't want to make assumptions based on overhearing conversations, so I made each of our openings about giving more information. That way I wouldn't be making assumptions.
I sent the opeing on November 20th, and he told me that he's now working on a response. If he agrees to it, I'll put his up after I receive it.
Now, for my opening:
As I said, my views are most closely associated with secular humanism. You can find a description of secular humanism here: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=what§ion=main
A brief overview of secular humanism is:
As with most other people, this is a decent general idea of my views but the details are more involved.
For clarity’s sake I’ll break my views down into individual parts. If you need clarification on some parts, or want to ask about things I don’t discuss please feel free to. I’ll start with the broader aspects and we can go into more detail as we go along.
Since some issues are referenced in others, I’ll include an outline of what I discuss.
1) God
2) Religion
3) The Bible
4) Morality
5) The Supernatural
6) Science
7) Intelligent Design/Creationism
8) Evolution
9) Miscellaneous
10) Conclusion
God
For full disclosure’s sake I’ll go ahead and tell you that I’m an atheist. However, as with most “labels” the term isn’t black and white. Richard Dawkins came up with a scale of belief in the existence of a god or gods. The scale goes from 1 to 7 and is as follows:
On that scale I am a 6. I can’t know for certain that God doesn’t exist but I haven’t seen anything that inclines me to believe that it does. Therefore, I live my life according to values and morals that I’ve developed through introspection and exploration.
With that being said, even if it were to be proven in the future that God does exist that doesn’t necessarily mean that I would follow its tenets. Authority and power do not make any being moral, and I would expect it to explain to me why I should follow any particular rule that I didn’t agree with.
Religion
As I stated earlier I prefer to refer to it as personal philosophy rather than assume a stereotype of a religion. A person may identify most closely with a particular branch of religion, but I expect that their views would differ from some aspects of the religion if they were honest. Still, as with any philosophy it’s a way that a person establishes their moral values.
Even though I don’t believe in a deity, I have nothing against religion per se. However, I do have issues with what some people do in the name of their religion. All too often religion is used as a reason for ill treatment and discrimination against others who are different. If a person believes that they have to behave in a certain way in order to make it to a happy afterlife I don’t have a problem with that until their beliefs start having a negative effect on other people.
The Bible
In 325 BC a group of Christian authorities was gathered in Nicaea by Emperor Constantine I in order to reach consensus. The result is a collection of some of the existing books from the Jewish Tanakh, the teachings of Jesus as told by his apostles, and other gospels. Basically, the entire collection was done by a committee over 3 centuries after Jesus himself could have had any say so.
To me the Bible is simply another book. It was written by people, and as such contains biases toward their views of the world. However, unlike most other books it has also had two millennia for errors in translation and copying (both intentional and unintentional) to be propagated.
Basically, I question why anyone would base their philosophy and beliefs on the world as it was viewed by people two millennia ago. I believe that a person should examine not only what we’ve discovered about our surroundings (both immediate and cosmic) until today, but also examine the evidence that has supported those discoveries.
Morality
Simply put morality is the way a person views right and wrong. Since morality is based on a person's views they are also subjective. One person's idea of right and wrong does not necessarily equal another's. Of course, the major influence on a person’s morality is their personal philosophy.
My view of morality, in simplistic terms, is three different types of actions. Of course, there’s more detail to it but this the general description of it.
There are some scenarios of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few that can still be moral actions, but not as moral as actions that have no negative effect on anyone else. Consider those sorts of actions as being at 1.5. (If you’d like, we can discuss this further, later.)
The Supernatural
When I speak of the supernatural what I’m referring to is anything that relies on magic as an explanation. This includes such things as astrology, numerology, psychics, homeopathy, traditional acupuncture, angels, demons, deities, an afterlife, and reincarnation. As I discussed above about God, I don’t know that any of these don’t exist but I haven’t found anything that gives me a reason to give them any credence. The late astronomer Carl Sagan once said “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” The more unlikely the assertion is the greater the need for evidence.
Science
When I refer to science I refer to the scientific method and its findings. Science is simply a method of investigation. What it finds is neither right nor wrong in a moral sense. It’s simply the answer that was arrived at through the evidence found. Sometimes, the answer is wrong or incomplete, but further investigation is used to correct that.
In order for a hypothesis or theory to be scientific it has to meet three criteria. It has to be testable, falsifiable, and reproducible. If it fails at any of these three then it does not meet the criteria and is no better than a guess.
Intelligent Design/Creationism
Intelligent design and creationism both imply that there were supernatural forces at work during the creation of the universe and life as we know it. The supernatural is not a proven or falsifiable assumption, so neither ID nor creationism is a scientific explanation. This was even supported by a court in Kansas (Kitzmiller vs. Dover).
The other day you spoke of complexity as a reason that you don’t believe in ToE. Taking that view, then God would have needed to be designed since he must be more complex than us.
There’s also the fact that every vertebrate on Earth develops in the same way that people do. They start out as a small collection of cells, slowly grow more complex, and then come out into the world and continue growing until they have (hopefully) passed on their genes and died. This is a continual occurrence and science has even found the “triggers” that cause many parts of development.
Evolution
Evolution is the change in generations of organisms caused by natural selection. The individuals with the most beneficial traits will be more likely to survive until the age that they can reproduce and will be more “attractive” for mating. Therefore, the genetic traits of those individuals will be more numerous in the next generation and eventually those traits will become dominate.
Evolution is one of the best supported (by the evidence) theories in science. Everything from findings in the fossil record to actual observations done in recent years has supported and furthered the understanding of ToE.
One example is a fossil found by the paleontologist Neil Shubin. There were fossils of amphibians and later fossils of fish, but none had found the transitional form between the two. So Dr. Shubin and a colleague happened upon a geology textbook and found that there was an undeveloped area where no one had looked that fit the criteria of what was needed. So they got the funding to go to the location and look. They found an area where the rock strata that they expected to find it in was exposed and started their search. What they found has been named Tiktaalik. It’s a fish with a bone structure that allows it to “do push-ups”, as Dr. Shubin described it.
The criteria that Dr. Shubin and his colleague used was that the rock strata should date to the middle time between the dates of the fish and amphibian, and the area should have been in shallow water and on the edge of an ocean at the time. Using findings from chronology, geology, paleontology, and evolutionary biology they were able to not only find the fossil, but also figure out where it should be found if the theories were correct.
Miscellaneous
During our discussion the other day you said something about thinking of my view as a horizontal worldview and of yours as a vertical. Personally, I think that description is too limiting in both cases. Both of those adjectives describe being linear and as such one dimensional.
Conclusion
This is an overview of how I view the world and what guides my actions, but by no means is a complete explanation. As with anything things are rarely as simple as they may seem on the surface. I look forward to receiving your reply and continuing our discussion.
December 18, 2009
Exchange with a Coworker: My Opening
December 10, 2009
10 Christian Questions Answered by an Atheist
Hemant Mehta of The Friendly Atheist found a list of 10 questions asked of Christians by David Hayward. As an exercise, Hemant posted the same questions and asked them of atheists. You will find the questions [in italics, and with a '*' at the end to denote those asked by Mr. Mehta] and my answers to them below the fold.
Yes. Beliefs are internal, and up to the person. Whether you consider them to be wrong or right should only be addressed if the person publicly voices their beliefs.
Yes. If a person holds what I percieve to be a negative belief but doesn't take action in using that belief to harm others then I can respect the person.
I hope so.
I'm assuming that "kill" in this sense refers to great emotional stress. In that case, I don't think so. During the time that I was gradually coming to understand my atheism it wasn't a major crisis for me, and that is arguably the most life altering realization that I've ever come to.
But I could be wrong.
Absolutely not. The truth is too important to be treated lightly, even in the interest of dialog.
Of course, I've tried to do so for nearly my entire life. Additionally, I always attmept to, not only hear but, listen to what they say.
Ooohhh... someone wrote a deepity. As a kayaker I'll further this analogy. Looking at the surface will often tell you what the deeper currents are like if you know what to look for. The trick is drawing on past experience with those currents.
So, in effect yes. I won't be distracted by the surface ripples, because I'll be using them to give me a greater idea of what is underneath.
I hope that my answer to question #2 would give you some idea of my answer to this. I'm willing to converse, associate, or "play" with anyone, regardless of their beliefs. I will however avoid or confront someone who takes a negative action against me or another person.
Absolutely not.
By my definition of love, no and no. Love, like respect, has to be earned, but love takes a deeper involvement in order for a person to earn it. If you were to love everyone, then you would truly love no one.
Being approachable/likeable isn't imporant to me to begin with. I try to conduct myself in a way that others won't find condescending, intimidating, or threatening but there are some people that you just can't deal with.
If you have to "cede points" to someone to keep the relationship going it doesn't sound like there is a strong relationship to being with.
I'm hoping someone will develop a similar set of questions without the esoteric meanings that are in this one. While I agree that getting both sides to answer questions is a good way to get a dialog going, if the questions aren't clear to both sides then they are all but useless.
December 9, 2009
Dove Deepity #2: Thank Those You Love
I got another Dove chocolate, today. This time Princess had put it into my lunch, but I still opened it with slow trepidation. What I read wasn't as "Wait... What?" as the last time, but it still leaves me feeling glad that there was at least real chocolate.Express your gratitude to those you love.
This one didn't have an attribution, so I expect that they just included it because it's a common enough saying in our culture. Still, there are a few reasons why I consider it a deepity.
Excessive Purple Prose:
Notice my title compared to what the quote actually was. Sometimes, to make something seem deep and insightful people will use a string of 50 cent words where a penny word will suffice. Such as "express your gratitude to" instead of "thank".
It's too limiting:
Instead of "those you love" what about "everyone who has helped you". I would expect that means you would thank those you love, and those you meet sometimes just in passing. The message they are giving implies just thinking those you love instead of everyone who's aided you in some way.
Why not "love" instead of "gratitude"?
Instead of thanking them, shouldn't you actually tell those you love that you love them? If all you ever do is show gratitude then you would have to assume that they know you love them. I have actually seen people who have difficulty in expressing affection, and instead "thank" those they love. Sometimes they do so without using words, such as giving gifts. However, if they were to actually tell someone they loved them, it would mean even more since it is so difficult for them to admit.
I've actually submitted something to Dove, but I'm going to see if they actually accept it. I'll keep you posted, and if they do you can decide if it's a deepity.
December 8, 2009
Xmas Ideas
Since I know Princess reads this, I'll put up some ideas for (tongue in cheek) Xmas gifts.
Here's the first one:
From Blog
The only thing better would be having Summer Glau to recite: "We'll have to call it early quantum state phenomenon. Only way to fit 5000 species of mammal on the same boat."
And here's another one:
From Blog
Isn't this much more thought provoking than that other version?
December 7, 2009
Greed as a Tool
A few years ago a few coworkers applied for a job that had been posted online. When they told me about it I knew what the result would be, but none of them seemed to care. More recently, an elderly husband and wife, Patricia and Jerry Tackes, used up all of their savings, to the tune of more than $78,000, in an attempt to accomplish the same thing.
With my coworkers it was more mundane. For a $5 "processing fee" they could get a job compiling spreadsheets provided by some big name companies. Each of the spreadsheets would take a relatively short amount of time, less than 8 hours a week, but they would receive a $5,000 paycheck for their work. When they told me about the amount they would make flags went up in my head, but when they told me about the processing fee blaring alarms started going off.
Each of them blew it off, saying that it would only cost them $5 which wasn't much. They tried to convince me to join, but I just shook my head and told them I wasn't going to waste my money. The day came when the spreadsheets were supposed to be emailed to everyone, but nothing came. I managed not to say "It was only five dollars" when they started complaining. Apparently, several of them had been making plans for how they were going to use the 5K that they now would never get.
The monetary investment had only been five dollars, but they had an emotional investment that went along with it. Some planned on paying off their houses and other bills using the money, others planned on buying a house or replacing a car, and still others planned on going back to school.
My coworkers used "It's only $5" as reasoning to justify their greed. The couple in the article?"We're honest," she said. "We were raised Catholic, and we just believe everybody. It's just torn up our whole life."
Yes, I said that even the 83 year old and her husband were being greedy.
Websters defines greed as: "a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed". However, I think there's more to it than that. Greed is not only wanting more than you need, but also getting it in a way that requires less effort. Why work a few years of 40 hour weeks to get $100,000 in installments when you can rob a bank and get the entire amount in a few minutes?
With my coworkers the $5,000 a week carrot dangling in front of them made the $5 "processing fee" less questionable. The woman who'd been organizing the work disappeared that day and took the money with her. It's unknown how many people had given her $5 for the fee, but she was supposedly looking for 500 employees. I'll save you the math and tell you that's $2,500, but you also have to wonder if she actually stopped if the list reached 500. Some how, I doubt it.
With the Tackes, the end payout of millions made them less questionable of the mounting fees that they were being asked to pay to get it. However, it didn't seem to occur to them that they were being conned until their savings was entirely cleaned out. This was even after a Moneygram employee told Mrs. Tackes that it was a scam.
In each of these cases the tactics used were illegal, but there are even legal ways of using our greed against us. Casinos are able to make the big payouts to small groups of people because the majority loose more than that amount to the casinos. Everyone playing is trying to get the big payout, but the loosers are paying the casinos and the winners. Every lottery and raffle their is works on the same principle. The intent is to offset the amount that the winner makes by taking the money from the loosers. The additional money goes to those organizing the gambling.
Have you ever noticed that high volume sale items, such as milk, are located towards the back of a grocery store, or that those end cap advertising sales in grocery stores have items that you wouldn't normally think about buying? When you walk in just to grab a gallon of milk you have to walk by all of those other items that you weren't thinking about buying, and you may start wondering which of those you need at home or remember something that you would have waited to buy later. When you're doing your regular shopping they put the low-volume items on sale where they are the most visible, which is at the end of every aisle. Normally you wouldn't give them a second glance but now they're very visible and on sale. In both cases the grocery store is angling for an impulse buy, and this goes back to my proposed addition to "greed".
In the case of the additional items while you're just picking up the milk you may think "I'm already here anyway", even though you may be able to find it cheaper somewhere else. In the case of the end-caps they're hoping for you to think "hey this is cheaper than it normally is". In each case it's a way of preying on our inclination to put forth less effort for a greater result.
Now the question is what causes us to be greedy? If you include my proposed aspect of putting forth little effort it could be an evolutionary trait. Many predators go after weak prey, and that's their best option. If they go after a healthy and strong one they'll get better meat, but a fit prey is more likely to injure or elude the predator.
Being "greedy" is a good survival trait. An early human hunting with a spear has a much higher likelihood of providing a meal and much lower likelihood of injury than a human trying to take the prey bare handed. Trapping is even a way of using the greed of other animals for our own ends. Unfortunately, this trait can be used against us, too. Get-rich-quick schemers, swindlers, and businesses employee quite a bit of psychology when developing their ideas. In essence, their greed entices them to use our own against us.
Another thing I've noticed is that the "greed" trait is dominate as long as the carrot is being dangled in front of the person. As long as the $5,000 a week paycheck, or the millions in lottery money were still possible the people reasoned away the idea that they were wasting their time and money. However, after it became completely clear that they'd been conned they felt angry and hurt. They refused to listen to anyone trying to tell them they were being had, but then expect sympathy when it's all over.
My coworkers seemed irritated that I didn't give them any sympathy. When they first told me about it, I explained why I thought it was a scam. When they finally lost all hope that it wasn't a scam (the woman disappeared with their money) they couldn't believe that someone would do such a thing. They tried to play on emotion to develop sympathy for their stupidity. They only lost $5 to the woman, but they wanted something emotional reciprocated from someone for their feelings of betrayal.
Mrs. Tackes is apparently surprised that people would do such a thing."We're honest," she said. "We were raised Catholic, and we just believe everybody. It's just torn up our whole life."
PZ thinks that this implies that she was raised a victim, but I'm not so sure. I wonder if it is a way to generate sympathy. Perhaps by identifying herself and her husband as Catholic other Catholics will take up a collection to help alleviate the financial impact? This is purely conjecture, but would anyone be surprised?
Also, there's another thing that she said that raises a flag:"We were going to move into (a) retirement home, but now we don't have the money. I just want to help other people who are in the same predicament."
Patricia is 83 and I'm assuming her husband Jerry is about the same age, they had enough money to move into a retirement home, and I'm also assuming that their intent to move into the retirement home meant they had enough that they could live there comfortably for a time. Why did they risk all of that in order to get more?
Their pleas of innocence (or gullibility, depending on how you look at it) just doesn't seem to fit. Perhaps the Tackeses (sp?) are as kind and innocent as they make themselves out to be, but being a person who actually knows about 419 scams I'm skeptical. It seems that they had enough money before the lottery offers came in that they could have lived out their lives comfortably, but now they're going for sympathy.
In both cases those who were looking to make the money used their trust in the kindness and honesty of others as an excuse (notice it's not a reason) for their gullibility. Since I didn't join my coworkers, and I've ignored and laughed at hundreds of lottery and 419 email scams does that make me a cynic?
No. I used the trait that we've evolved to balance our greed. Skepticism.
In the case of the job opportunity, I questioned why anyone would have to pay in order to work. I've worked for companies that will find you jobs (headhunters), and even they take the money from the company that they lease your services to. You don't have to pay a dime. Also, the $5,000 a week for 8 hours of work raised a flag. Our economy is based on supply demand. I'm sure that the companies the woman was supposed to get the work from could get the work done cheaper by those who actually worked for them, and it would have allowed them better control of their own information. Plus, every question I thought about the woman had supposedly answered in her email. Everyone was gung ho to accept her explanation, but to me it was as vague and evasive as a newspaper horoscope.
Now, how has skepticism kept me from trying to get the millions (or perhaps billions, by now) of dollars promised to me by international lotteries, people overseas who's money is being held up by their governments, or the inheritance that comes to me from a distant relative in Nigeria?
I know how lotteries and such work. If a person who never entered can win the lottery then the lottery is either very badly thought out, or a scam. Add to that the request for money in order to pay out, and it moves directly into the scam category.
Requesting my help in getting money out of a governments hands while I only have a pay a few thousand in order to get millions is a little shady. Why? Anyone who has a few million they are willing to share would probably know someone more wealthy than me who could help them out, and sending out a random email (with multiple misspellings and bad grammar) to someone named Berlzebub makes me really question your intelligence.
I have a large family. It's large enough that I still have to explain to my wife how I'm related to some even after she's been involved in my family gatherings for a decade. Further, where I grew up relations have a form of bragging rights. Thanks to that I found that I'm related to a hero of WWI. By related, I mean that he's so distant that the amount of heredity I share with him might as well be homeopathic. Still, if someone that distant from me in geneology is known to be my relative I'm pretty sure that a rich uncle in Nigeria would be big news among the family. If not, then it would be much more likely that he would email closer relatives first. And why don't they contact me through a lawyer? Again, sending the email to Berlzebub does not inspire any confidence in your intelligence or honesty.
Oh, and add to all of those that I have the fucking internet and I WASN'T RAISED IN A COMMUNE!
Around us are all sorts of cautionary words about our greed. Edgar Allen Poe wrote the poem Eldorado concerning someone searching fruitlessly for promised riches, you'll often hear something like "the safe way to double your money is to fold it over once and put it in your pocket" and "if something's too good to be true it probably is", and see news articles about people who have been swindled. However, we still have people such as Mrs. Tackes who fall for the cons, and give the swindlers a reason to continue the cons. Until people start to practice their trait of skepticism, the greed trait will remain. That also means that the greed trait will continue for the con men who utilize it in others.
This is yet another reason to endorse critical thinking and skepticism. As long as there are those who's greed makes them easy prey there will be the greedy who prey on it. The harder it is for the greedy to find targets for the scam, the less lucrative the scams will be. Granted, this just means that the swindlers will probably adapt to another scam, but critical thinking can help overcome those, too.
Also communication can play an important part. The communication has to go two ways, though. My coworkers told me about their job opportunity, and I explained why I thought it was a scam... they didn't listen. When the Tackeses tried to wire money through Moneygram an employee there blocked the transfer and told her it was a scam, but she continued the effort anyway. In both cases the parties being had were told by someone that it was a scam, but they continued on with it, anyway. They ignored the alarm bells that anyone who uses their noggin for something beside a hatrack would have going off.
While I feel bad for those who are the victims of these crimes, I have difficulty in feeling sympathy. If someone ignores the "BRIDGE OUT AHEAD" signs, the worker screaming at them to stop, and then sails into a river I'm not going to give them any sympathy over loosing their car.
Atheist Analogy #6: Prayer
This atheist analogy is about prayer. Prayer is the way that some address their deity. Most often, it involves asking the deity to intercede in some way. It can be asking the deity to directly influence an outcome, or give the person strength or insight to resolve a situation.
Since I see no reason to believe in the existence of a deity prayer is no different than thinking of, wishing, or meditation. I have never heard of a prayer being answered in a way that requires a bonafide miracle. That is where the only possible explanation is a supernatural action.
Thinking of
Since I recently had two friends die and often heard or read "You're in my prayers" or "I'll be praying for you". If you change those to "You're in my thoughts" and "I'll be thinking of you" it becomes the same thing. Something I did notice is that in very few cases was the prayer the only thing that was offered. In both cases a collection of money was taken up to help the families until they could get things straightened out. In the case of my childhood friend he didn't have any life insurance so the family was going to have to absorb the cost of the funeral and burial. In the case of my mentor it takes time for the paperwork to go through so that the family will get the supplimental finances coming in to help with the bills.
Wishing
It's football season, so you'll no doubt hear about the deity of choice supporting one team or player over another. Some teams even have pre-game prayers asking for the deities help in winning the game. Of course, there are also those who pray for help in curing, or alleviating the symptoms of, their disease. When the outcome coincides with their prayers they conclude that their training and determination takes a backseat to their deity of choice when it comes to the outcome of the game. The doctors expertise and the advancements in the medical field are largely ignored and the result is claimed to be an answer to their prayers when it comes to their medical condition.
Meditation
A few months ago a coworker told me that she prayed for something, and then found that what she was praying for had been before her all along. She attributed it to the prayer being answered, but if what she had been looking for was right in front of her why did it take the prayer for it to be shown to her? Meditation is a calming technique. It's used to relieve stress and as a way to clear you mind when you're trying to seek answers. The difference in mediation and prayer is that meditation doesn't seek a supernatural influence. I do find one similarity, though. The answers that the people get always come from themselves. It's the little voice inside their heads that everyone has when they seek answers from themselves. In the case of those who pray, they attribute the voice to their deity of choice instead of their own ability to find answers when they calm down and actually think the problem through.
People often cite instances where they believe a prayer was answered, but ignore the more mundane natural explanation for the result. Instead they claim that it was an intercession from their deity of choice and give it all of the credit. In the process they ignore the efforts of those who actually caused the outcome that the praying person had wished for. This can include doctors, friends, colleagues, and even the praying person themselves. They also ignore the prayers that don't get answered and only point out the ones that they think have been.
Phil Plait once wrote something that I liked."One pair of hands grasping a shovel will do far more good than a thousand hands closed in prayer."
For the faithful, praying or being prayed for may make them feel better, but it does nothing to actually help. Instead, take action, because that can have a real effect on the world around you and the people who live on it.
December 4, 2009
Dove Deepity #1: Fall 7, Get Up 8
You know those annoying deepities I was talking about yesterday. Well, my coworker and friend gave me a Dove chocolate during lunch today, and I couldn't resist the urge to see what wisdom the wrapper held. Getting ready to read the wrapper felt similar to holding a lottery ticket. You hope for the best outcome, but the odds are you will be disappointed.
So, I popped the chocolate into my mouth and then smoothed out the foil wrapper to read Dove's version of deep thoughts.
Before my eyes was one of the finest examples of a deepity that I've ever come across.If you fall down 7 times, get up 8.
If you had to read that twice, don't feel bad. So did I... And I still didn't get it. Hell, it still makes no sense to me.
Deborah - Crown Point, IN
Are we supposed to fall down one more time, on purpose, and don't count it just so we can make the effort to get back up again? Are they considering that we'll "get up" out of bed in the morning, or "get up" from a seat at some point? Hell, I don't fall down seven times a day anyway, or even seven times between moments when I sit down.
Are they trying a variation on "giving 110%" (although 8/7 is 114%)? It's still a fail. If that was what they were getting at, they could have said so.
You want to know something even worse? What Deborah sent in isn't even original. It's an "old" Japanese proverb. According to that website:"Basically if you fail 7 times, you should recover from those events and be prepared to rise an 8th time. This is also applies if it is the world or circumstances that knock you down seven times...
Hmmm... Sound familiar? I'll give you a hint to get you started.
...just remember that you have the ability to bounce back from any kind of adversity."
Everybody Now!
If at first you don't succeed...
Good grief. It's like the Golden Rule. It seems that every major philosopher who ever existed has posited it at one time or another, they all just said it in slightly different ways.
However, with the "7/8" someone decided to make it more complicated and add a logic loop. If they want to make something uplifting, make it uplifting. This is like Chicken Soup for One Hand Clapping.
But do you want to know what's really irritating? The next time I eat one I'll still look inside the wrapper, hoping that the next one I read will actually say something meaningful.
December 3, 2009
The Annoyance of Deepities
There's a new word that's possibly going to become an integral part of skeptical, and even atheist, vocabulary. The word is deepity. It came to my attention when Daniel Dennett gave a presentation at a recent AAI meeting. According to Jerry Coyne's coverage of the speech a deepity is:
"a statement that has two meanings, one of which is true but superficial, the other which sounds profound but is meaningless."(You can watch -and I highly recommend- the hour long presentation by Mr. Dennett here)
I have to give a huge thanks to Mr. Dennett for giving a term to describe something that annoys the shit outta me. Ever since I let go of religion and started working out describing my own personal philosophy I've become more aware of what others say concerning philosophy. Periodically, someone will say something that they think is deep and profoud, but when I play it back in my head it comes off as shallow and evasive. Dennett calling it a deepity is perfect for me, for that very reason. The statement is a characiture of a deep thought, but only superficially resembles anything substantial.
I've seen and heard numerous deepities that range from the standard "God is Love" to some of those annoying quotes that come with Dove Promises (I recommend using LIST VIEW). I end up feeling like the wiseass kid in SMBC and have to find something to get the bad taste out of my mouth.
The most recent deepity I heard was from a coworker. Admittedly, it might have been a bad idea but I had a discussion with the coworker who sent the recent evolution email. My response to him clued him into my trust in evolution, and that led to a slightly more in depth discussion on philosophy.
During the discussion I said (paraphrased) I see no reason to use a 2 millenia old book as a moral guide, or base my philosophies on a being that very well may not exist. Admittedly, he didn't say something as stupid as "God is love" or some other cop-out. Instead, he said something that he apparently believed to be profound. I'll have to paraphrase from memory, but it's close enough:
I believe your worldview is horizontal, but mine is vertical. I look up toward God for my morals.Make no mistake, this pissed me off. I had to take a few seconds to calm myself before I made any response at all.
After my silence, I gave a little smile and said "I look up all the time. At the blue sky, clouds, stars and moon." Whether he got my subtle insinuation that by looking up I'd never seen God, I'm unsure but he was unable to come up with a response.
However, it doesn't end there. Since having verbal discussions on such things, at work, are difficult I asked him if he would be interested in an email exchange. I thought it might be a way to clear him of some false misconceptions of atheists that he seemed to hold, because I seriously doubt that either he or I are going to be swayed toward holding the others belief.
He accepted, and I wrote a small essay of my views on various things. Perhaps later I'll publish the complete essay, but for now I'm going to give you what I wrote in the Miscellaneous section of the essay.
"During our discussion the other day you said something about thinking of my view as a horizontal worldview and of yours as a vertical. Personally, I think that description is too limiting in both cases. Both of those adjectives describe being linear and as such one dimensional."Granted, I may be giving him too much credit, and he may base his entire morality on the words supposedly written by his imaginary friend. However, it was insulting for him to insinuate that my philosophy and worldview is one dimensional. I've drawn on many sources to figure out my views of right and wrong. I just haven't used a being that I don't believe exists as a starting point.
Now, back to the subject of deepities. My impression of those that say such things are that they haven't delved into why they actually believe the deepities they utter are insightful. As with the infamous Edward of the now defunct Christian Cross Talk, they put forth these statements that they find irrefutable. Then, they have to tie themselves in knots (or drop the conversation altogether) in order to defend themselves when others point out how badly thought out their ideas actually are.
So thank you Mr. Dennett for giving me an appropriate word to describe something that irritates me so. However, I'd also like to submit a layman's definition for it.
Deepity (noun): The irritating answer you get when someone hasn't thought the question through before you asked it.
December 1, 2009
Feelings of Loss
This past weekend I lost two people who were close to me. One was a childhood friend who I ran around with for a decade named James. The other is a coworker who I've known for about a decade named Gary. Mama called on Friday to tell me that James had died of a heart attack, and my friend and coworker called me on Saturday to tell me that Gary had died of a heart attack.
James and I became best friends not long after we first met. I was in the seventh grade. He lived just up the road from me, and we got together quite often to do things together. Some things were the mundane that boys do, and others were those that boys do that I won't mention just in case either of our parents ever read this.
He was a year younger than me and a grade behind me in school, but even during my first year of college we still hung out together. Then, after he graduated, he joined the Air Force. It's at that point that our commonality diverged. By the time he'd served and returned home I'd moved away from home. Our interests no longer overlapped as much as they did, and we didn't have anything to talk about. We grew apart.
Gary and I both started at around the same time with the company I currently work for. I was a drafter and he was a product designer. When I showed interest in becoming a product designer he instructed me in the programs and eventually my title changed. During that time some shuffling of management occured and Gary became a manager. More important to this story he became my manager.
Unfortunately, at the same time the company wasn't going in a direction that coincided with the direction I wanted to go. I got a job offer from another company and ended up taking it. Gary wanted me to stay but the offer was too good for me to pass up.
Eventually, I realized that what I'd been told by my new employer and what was actually occuring weren't coinciding. It was at that point that I was contacted by Gary about coming back. After a little back and forth I was rehired by my present company.
This time things were different. Gary and others had set up a plan and were sticking to it. It would give the designers and others a chance to grow and be challenged. It was exactly what I was looking for.
Even better was Gary's role. He was arguably the best boss a person could ask for. He stood behind you when he thought you were right, and stood beside you if you made a mistake. He was understanding and supportive while Princess and I were going through IVF, and was willing to give me and others a flexible schedule in order to help our personal lives.
Now they're both gone.
All I'll ever have of James are the memories of him and the times we shared. We'll never be able to see if we can find those common interests we once shared that made us so close.
I last talked to Gary on Wednesday before Thanksgiving holiday. He was excited that his son was coming home on leave from the Air Force for the holiday. We wished each other a good Thanksgiving and said we'll see each other Monday. But we didn't. I'll never be seeing him alive again.
Now I'm working through my grief. I missed the funeral of my childhood friend because of timing (I didn't find out it was on Monday until Sunday evening), and tomorrow I'm going to the funeral of a friend and mentor. Perhaps the funeral will bring me closer to closure in both cases.
