sudo life

A few weeks ago, I listened to this great podcast episode from Hanselminutes with James Bach.  While the podcast is normally about programming topics, this particular episode was more about auto-didactic learning.  Near the end of the show, they talk about the concept of ‘Strong Opinions, Lightly Held.’

The idea behind this concept is that you have very strong opinions about something, but you’re not dedicated to it.  You can make a passionate defense of a topic, but when presented with contrary evidence, you simply switch over.  Imagine making a very strong argument and then going ‘Oh, you’re right. Nevermind.’

This is something I don’t think very many people understand, but as someone who’s philosophy is scientific in nature, I’m very familiar with it.  I’ve experienced this countless times where I’ve made what I think is a very good argument for something, then had someone completely destroy it with a simple counter argument.  At that point, I have no choice but to change my mind.  And that’s a good thing.  It means I’ve learned something new, and I’ve progressed in some way.  It’s something I strive for, and when I see it in others, it’s something that gains them immediate respect in my eyes.

Being ‘wrong’ about something has been unfairly stigmatized in our culture.  If you change your mind about something, many times you’re viewed as a ‘waffler,’ or someone who doesn’t know what they believe, or someone who lacks principles.  In reality, it’s just the opposite.  Changing your mind when faced with a better argument does not represent the lack of principles, but dedication to the pursuit of truth.  Is is the embodiment of the idea that truth is more important than the self and that any opinions, beliefs, and views one has must bend to reality, because to do anything else is delusion, by definition.

It doesn’t mean you won’t make mistakes, that you can’t be misled.  It’s easy to imagine a situation where you hear what you only perceive to be a better argument, and in reality, you’re missing some vital information that would clearly demonstrate its incorrectness.  The beauty of this philosophy of ‘strong opinions, lightly held,’ is not that it always leads directly to ‘truth,’ but that it’s self-correcting. If you take the wrong path at some point, it’s easily corrected once you do have the required information.  You never reach ‘absolute’ truth, but you do get closer to it with each iteration.

If there is a path towards wisdom, it surely must begin with the recognition of your own fallibility through self-examination, and this is exactly what is represented by ‘Strong Opinions, Lightly Held.’

education Atheism, Science

Recently, there have been a plethora comments coming from people who should know better concerning terms like ‘hacker,’ or more appropriately ‘hacking.’  I would link to some of the examples, but they have been removed. It is ironic that many of these comments came from atheists who should be sympathetic to being labeled as something that has different meanings depending on if it’s self-labeled or applied by someone else.  Atheists realize they are only ‘non-theists’ while many theists have the tendency to view atheists as something much more horrible, and very far from reality.

When the lay person uses the word ‘hacker’ or any of it’s forms, they are usually refering to some sort of illegal, or at the very least, annoying activity.  Things like breaking into someone’s computer, launching ddos attacks, stealing identities, and the like.  This is not how the term was originally meant to be used.  The proper word to describe these activities is ‘cracking.’  A person who cracks into computer systems is a cracker, not a hacker.

So what is a hacker? Here are a few definitions from the Jargon file:

1. A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. RFC1392, the Internet Users’ Glossary, usefully amplifies this as: A person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in particular.
2. A person who is good at programming quickly.
3. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for example.
4. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations.

I don’t know about you, but I tend to view these as good things – as things to strive towards.

It is a big problem that the words can have such varying meanings.  Even though I know the difference, I’ve been known to use them inappropriately when talking to people who don’t know the difference and don’t want to know the difference.  It’s very frustrating when these people are atheists people who should know better.  I don’t know how to solve this problem, but I’m open to ideas.  I like the label of hacker, though I don’t think it can really apply to me.  I’m simply not good enough.  Never-the-less, I do hope that this post has raised some consciousness about the issues involved here.

Philosophy Atheism, pedantry, Programming, technology

There are some people in the atheist community I just can’t stand, and absolutely disagree with. Atheists are people, and becoming an atheist doesn’t change our basic nature. There are atheists at every stage of the human spectrum.

I’ve been going to a group that meets on sunday mornings here in KC, called ’skeptical religion studies.’ We’ve been viewing a scholarly lecture about the different world religious (christianity, hinduism, islam, and buddhism), and then having a (not-so-scholarly) discussion afterwards. I am the youngest attendee at these meetings by at least a decade.

The last few times, I’ve walked out halfway through the discussion. I just couldn’t take it any more. People who think they have it all figured out. Christianity is all a lie based on a bringing together of local pagan traditions. The catholic church kills authors of books they don’t agree with. Those are two examples of things that have been advanced by different people in these meetings as cold hard facts. It makes me want to pound my head on the wall. Then there are the atheists who don’t believe in god, but believe in all the paranormal b.s. Who think we live in a subjective reality. I have no idea where their coming from; everytime they talk, my ears go numb.

A couple of weeks ago, one group of them asked the question, ‘for all you who don’t believe in ghosts, where does all the energy go when we die?’ There was one good answer to this, but it was drowned out by some idiot going on and on about how the body runs off of ‘combustion.’

As an human being, you don’t have to know everything in the world. You know what’s really important? Being able to admit that you don’t know something. Repeat after me, ‘I don’t know, but that’s an interesting question, and I should look it up and find out.’ Or if there is someone else in the area that does know what they’re talking about, let them talk.

The body is a bio-chemical machine. When those bio-chemical reactions are interrupted on a large enough scale, we die, and eventually all those bio-chemical reactions cease. That’s pretty simple. There is no mystical energy. And there sure as hell isn’t any combustion going on.*

Then there are the atheists I only know through the net. Some of them are awesome. Some of the others, not so much. Many of them are plagued by the same sort of issues I mentioned above: the inability to admit they don’t know something. They would rather make up something that sounds true rather than provide a basis for what they are talking about. ‘Truthiness’ is bad whoever is using it.

That’s not to say my way is better than anyone else’s. There are atheists out there I disagree with, but would good along fabulously with. I just cannot stand the attitude that says, ‘I’m right and your wrong’ without good reasons. It’s one thing for an evolutionist to tell an cdesign proponentists that they’re wrong, because they have a mountain of evidence supporting their position. It’s not ok for someone to claim that Jesus never existed, and was entirely made up by the romans and was really just Mithra in disguise. I’m sorry, there just isn’t that much evidence, and the issues are really nuanced. The scholarship surrounding these issues are far from conclusive. So, I don’t want to hear it put forward as fact. It’s an interesting theory, but nothing more.

After reading a story or two this morning and really irked me, I just had to get this out of my system.  If you’re an atheist who reads quite a few of the atheist blogs, you can probably guess what I’m talking about.  The whole thing disgusts me.

I realize I’ve said some pretty nasty things on this blog, especially about christians who believe in hell.  If there is one thing this incident has driven home for me is the need to focus on the positive aspects of our world view.  Between this latest news, and the wonderful ‘sermon‘ I viewed yesterday evening, I’m going to try to go in a new direction.  We should look to people like deGrasse Tyson as role models.

*Ok, oxidation does occur, but not nearly at a rapid enough pace to be considered ‘combustion.’ Maybe I am wrong, though, and I don’t really understand what the word ‘combustion’ means.

Atheism Atheism, critique

Spiritual: concerned with or affecting the spirit or soul; “a spiritual approach to life”; “spiritual fulfillment”; “spiritual values”; “unearthly love”

I think we need to new word that describes ’spiritual.’ ‘Spiritual’ simply has too much baggage, not to mention steeped in the assumption of superstitious ideals like the ’spirit’ or ’soul’ of which there is no evidence for.  I chose the definition above for ’spiritual’ as being the closest out of a list of them that described what I’m talking about when I use the word.  Yet, this definition is not close to the concept I am trying to describe.

Even though we have no soul or immaterial part of ourselves, there is part of us – our brains – that seek an understanding of the world we live in.  It drives us to take what we know and create new things – things that have never been done before, and perhaps in some cases, never even been imagined before.  It’s this drive to learn and create that I refer to when I say ’spiritual.’  It is spiritual, because as we do these things, we gain an understanding of the transcendental – a world that isn’t so much beyond matter, but beyond ourselves.  We have the humbling realization that we are just one person on a world full of many, on a planet that is around an ordinary star in an ordinary galaxy, in an ordinary cluster, et cettera.  There is nothing inherently special about us, yet we are here, and that is an extraordinary event in and of itself.

Our existence, as insignificant as it is, is something to be cherished.  While there is nothing necessarily divine about it, the word holy can almost be applied.

I am an agnostic atheist, which means I don’t believe in god, and I don’t think it’s possible to be absolutely sure one way or another if god exists.  But that fact about me doesn’t diminish that drive I mentioned before.  In fact, just the opposite is true.  I am a much more ’spiritual’ person as an atheist than I ever was as a Christian.  Perhaps that’s merely a product of my maturity however.

Never-the-less, the fact remains that I can’t really just call myself ’spiritual.’  Most people won’t understand it, or will get the wrong impression.  I can’t use words like ‘holy,’ as it implies a dogmatic devotion to some ideal that’s not to be question, instead of a description of a bigger perspective.  I can’t use the word ‘transcendental’ to describe an idea that transcends our own individual existence, because it implies something non-material.  These words simply have too much baggage.

There is much more that can be said.  One possible solution is to find new words, but there are problems with that idea.  Another possibility is to just get people to use these words in different ways, and force the definitions to expand, but there are obvious problems with that as well.  I have no doubt that with disbelief on the rise, we’ll figure this out one way or another, and I’ll be very interested to see just what happens.

Philosophy Atheism, pedantry, spirituality

“But Science doesn’t have all the the answer, you know”

I’ve been told this so many times, usually by Christians trying to convert me back to Christianity. I usually respond with something along the lines of ‘who says it needs to?’ but today, I’ve been reading something that has changed my perspective on this a bit.

For the first time, I really understand that these people think I’ve made science my ‘religion’ of sorts. This idea was so absurd to me that I never really gave it that much weight. Science as a religion? It’s crazy! Science is the opposite of everything religion is.

But the statement is pretty crazy with that even. It implies that where science fails to answer some questions, Christianity succeeds. This is simply not the case, unless you find the answer ‘god did it’ satisfying. It doesn’t satisfy me at all; in fact, it only leads to more questions, questions that have no answers.

Yes, science leaves us full of questions, and the more we learn about the universe, the more questions we have, and the more complicated they become. This is across all people, though. Science applies to every one. Being a Christian, or being a member of some other religion doesn’t make science ‘false.’ No matter your beliefs, the questions of science are equally valid due to it’s objective nature.

Thus the problem is revealed. Even if I did become a Christian again, I would only add to the questions I already had, questions that can’t be answered. Why would I want to muddle my life like that? Why would I want to split my attention like that? No thanks.

Their objection regarding the answers science hold fails.

Philosophy Atheism, christianity, Science

I’m getting kind of tired of people scoffing at the idea that science can make things more beautiful. For some reason, many people seem to think that knowing about something makes it less beautiful. I call bullshit, and it’s very easy to demonstrate my position.

Would the people who think understanding the world develops dullness think the same about people? Do people grow less beautiful the more you get to know them? You see a girl. She’s pretty, but doesn’t necessarily stand out. But as you talk to her and get to know her, does her beauty grow or diminish? In my experience, it’s nearly always the former; the exceptions are those rare occasions when you actually have a pretty ugly and hateful person. Ann Coulter comes to mind.

Why would it be any different for a flower, or a rainbow, or the night school, or the sunrise? Or any of the other endless examples of beautiful phenomena that we encounter everyday. It seems to me that looking staring at a sunrise without really wondering how it works is missing much of the experience. While it’s not necessarily a shallow experience, it’s certainly not as full as it could be.

It’s more meaningful to me to look at something that I have some understanding of and wonder at it. The feelings are intensified through knowledge, not dulled.

Maybe for some people, it’s the opposite. Maybe they view the world fundamentally different. That wouldn’t be terribly surprising. If that’s who they are, that’s reality, and there’s no use denying it. But I really would like you to stop scoffing at my own way, and to assume that you have it all figured out. If there is one thing that true understanding cultivates more than anything else, it’s the humility that you really know very little at all.

That’s something we can all learn from.

Philosophy Atheism, beauty, Science

Cailin has written a great description of what it’s like to look up (and around) at the awesome beauty of the Universe we live in:

These are the moments that fill me with the greatest pleasure and wonder, my appreciation for my own existence swells within me and I feel my eyes glaze with tears of joy and sorrow.

I once read a comment by someone made when viewing a beautiful sunset.  They said, ‘How can anyone look at something so beautiful and think there is no god?’  I didn’t say anything, but I was thinking, ‘Why would I want to pollute something so wonderful with something so ugly?’

Via The Friendly Atheist.

Atheism astronomy, Atheism, beauty, Science

possummomma talks about questioning your faith:

Is this really what theists are imagining when they say they’ve “questioned their faith”? I ask this sincerely because, if so, then this explains why so many theists will make the argument that atheists have become unhappy with God or angered by God. Is it really accurate for them to say that they’ve “questioned their faith”?

She’s refering to an article about a woman who is talking about her faith after her daughter was abducted. A very difficult situation, I have no doubt about that. The woman says:

Kate McCann said fear about what might have happened to Madeleine, who was taken from her bed in the family’s holiday apartment 102 days ago, led her to question her belief in God. “You find yourself asking, ‘Why do this to Madeleine? Why have you let this happen?’” she said.

But Mrs McCann said these “darker moments” of doubt were short-lived. “You realise that God hasn’t done this, somebody else has done this. I find myself asking God to help us find Madeleine and keep her safe”, she told the BBC’s Heaven and Earth programme.

Blaming god for something is not questioning your faith. If you blame something on god, then you still believe in his existance, you’re just questioning his motives. Don’t get me wrong; it’s a good question to ask, but unrelated to faith itself.

A question of faith would be, ‘does this experience imply that god doesn’t exist?’ Asking that question is what lead many to eventually leave their faith. They see all the evil in the world, or experience it theirselves, and the question naturally arises, ‘what kind of god would allow this? doesn’t it make more sense that no god would, and that this is a godless universe?’ It harkens back to the problem of evil, which I’ve written about in the past.

There is an even deeper issue, though, and that is the question of meaning, and why most people refuse to take that next step. I’m current reading ‘Gödel, Escher, Bach,’ so I want to hold off talking about that more. Look for this post coming up, however! If you just can’t wait (yeah, right), I have talked about this in the past.

Atheism Atheism, christianity, faith, spirituality

The Friendly Christian was asking what turns us off from Christianity. I gave my answer there, but I want to expand a bit on one point.

One of the main reasons I can’t be a Christian is what I call the ‘non-uniqueness’ of Christianity. If Christianity was really the one source truth, and all other religions were wrong, wouldn’t there be some very obvious indicators for it? Having posed that question, the first thing that needs to be discovered is what would be an indicator of truth?

There could be a long discussion here about ‘what is truth,’ and/or ‘how do we know what truth is,’ but I’m bored of such discussions. Truth is a representation of realit y. In other words, a ‘true statement’ would be an statement that accurate reflects reality. We verify that something is true through logic, reason, and emperical evidence.

With that out of the way, it’s time to pose my hypotheticals about the bible. What if the following would have happened?

Hypothetical #1
What if the Genesis actually followed the path of creation we know to be true? For example, there was an explosion, and then gas formed, and the gas gathered into stars, and the stars formed into galaxies, and eventually our own star was formed, and around that star was our planet. Et cettera. It would not be difficult to describe this even to a primitive people roaming the desert four thousand years ago. They may not have understood at the time, but it would be something for them to marvel, and then eventually come to understand. And how glorifying that would have been for god! It would be a win-win all around.

Hypothetical #2
[EDIT:  This wording was terrible]
What if instead of portraying men as superior to women, the bible explicitely stated that all people were equal, without regard for gender, ethnicity, or anything else? What if god had given them a morality we could recognize today as ‘good’ instead of something that believers today try very hard to ignore and rationalize away?

Hypothetical #3
What if instead of burnt offerings and other ceremonies, god decided he wanted to have us show our devotion through service to others? You say that Jesus did that? Why the hell wasn’t it like that from the beginning? Some might say that the people weren’t ready, and God was just guiding them along with what they could handle. Can you honestly believe that? Are we better moral beings than what existed a few thousand years ago? The ideas simply hadn’t been invented yet, which is quite obvious when we look at how quickly democracy and similar ideas were adopted after their invention among multiple civilazations. It’s also interesting to note how opposed the church has always been to these ideas, which we know to be good, or at the very least, better than what we had before.

Ok, there are three examples of possible ‘truth indicators’ that could have been unique to Christianity/Judaism. Instead what we see time and time again is that both are copycat religions. They take ideas that have been in use elsewhere, steal them, and use them as their own. And even then, we can see that they still have bad ideas, with little verifiable truth to be found. Sure there’s lots of stuff they say is true, but can’t be proven, but those things are meaningless because of it.

The fact of the matter is that where Christianity has the opportunity to shine as a beacon of truth, it fails miserably. And that is cause for great consideration.

Theology Atheism, christianity

One year ago was a Monday. I woke up at 3:30 AM in order to get ready to go out to the Airport to catch my flight to Portland, OR. I ended up getting to the Airport way too early, but that was OK. I had my iPod with me, and was catching up on some Podcasts. Got on the flight, and spent it watching the ground below me. I saw so many interesting things, and even a crater!

Got off the plane in Portland, and finally got my bags. Had some problems with the Hotel, but eventually got it all worked out. Then, I headed in to the conference center. Portland has an electric metro system, and I was looking forward to making full use of it. While I was waiting for the train, I spotted someone else waiting that was wearing an OSCON badge, so I did something I had rarely done before: I struck up a conversation with a stranger. I found out he was presenting some software, and that it might be useful to the lab where I work. I promised to stop by his companies booth and check it out.

I got to the convention center, and discovered that I was a day early, actually. There was some strangeness with how the conference was presented, and I had absolutely nothing to do. So I set out to explore Portland. Now that was a lot of fun. Portland is an amazing city, one I wouldn’t mind living in one bit. It’s clean, not too crowded, easy to get around in, and I could go on.

I thought briefly about renting a car and heading out to the coast to see the ocean. I do regret that I didn’t take that opportunity. Perhaps some other time.

Instead, I went to a Japanese Water Garden, which was awesome. Peaceful and relaxing. I hope to go back there someday, and perhaps even share the experience with someone. I felt a little lonely being in someplace new completely by myself, but everywhere I went, I was meeting new people. Going to grab some dinner, and see some guy waiting for the bus. I make a comment, and we actually have a conversation. He’s an apprentice construction worker, and he finds it funny that I don’t know what ‘Carl’s, Jr.’ is. We laugh about something. As he leaves, a girl arrives to wait as well. I’m feeling so good, I actually talk to a stranger who’s a female! We end up laughing as well.

Time to go back to the convention center, but I make a note of someplace to eat dinner. Seafood sounds good, and there is the perfect place. Interestingly enough, I just saw the exact same resaurant in a movie I saw a couple weeks ago. Brought back great memories. I miss Portland.

Back at the convention center, I’m sitting outside, taking a little rest. A few others stop by, and they are talking about Ruby On Rails, something I’m very interested in. I listen for a while, and then see a spot where I have something to offer the conversation. So I do. Another good conversation ensues.

Finally, I’m pretty tired. Hiking around Portland can be very tiring to say the least. I get back on the metro and head back to my hotel.

As I rest, my mind starts to wander. What’s going on with me? I’m acting completely different! I am actually happy!

The next week is one of the best I’ve ever had.

As I’m waiting to go to sleep, I think about my decision of the previous day. What does it mean? The answer seems obvious: it means that I’m happy. It means that I’m relieved. But it’s also too soon to tell for sure. So I must wait and see.

Why did I quit believing in god? I knew all the arguments against belief and god in general, but I still hadn’t been persuaded. The problem of evil is great, but the root of the problem is faith. I knew, ok, all of these things point to the non-existance of god, but I still believe. Look at how strong my faith is! I can believe in spite of all that. God loves me, and I need that love! I have felt him talk to me! He exists! He exists! He exists!

I was pouring all myself into that belief, trying, looking, hoping

I no longer worry about god. I have no need for that hypothesis.

One year ago today.

Personal Atheism, change, christianity, psychology