A passion for reading...

I love it when people ask me the oh-so-innocent question of "do you enjoy reading?" as the first thing to cross my mind is a series of sarcastic and entirely condescending remarks. Well...yes. To keep it simple.

Reading offers so much to the mind, such as languages offer the desire to express, or colors add to the ability to paint. In fact, when I imagine someone replying with a sober 'not really' it might build a well of darkness in my gullet as if being robbed of the moment.

So hard to think of a life in the absence of so much inspiration, such an exercise of imagination, I only see the noncognitive drought which only times of abundance make clear. Yet I now know it is hard not to see it as a weakness, but what is the alternative?

Films simply ask you to visualize a situation, a breakfast plate for example, specific in every way. A talented writer will describe that breakfast while making you imagine the details for your self, and the brain define the contours of every spoon for itself.

The bits we read on the internet barely hold the attention, and seem to encourage quick tangential searches. No, give me a good old fashioned poet to describe a mood, as Frost, Yeats, Fenton, or Wilde did on a daily basis. Let me learn with the works of any scholar, contemporary or ancient, and linger on every word which no documentary can afford. I can dive into the polemical, disect the history, and feast on the fantastical science fictions.

No, reading is not dead, and I do not feel I am being old fashioned in this, although time will tell. I feel we can all add the slightest pressures in society by encouraging our family and friends to pick up a good book, spend an hour in the couch, grass, or bed, and find something to expand our minds. Perhaps that hour might just inspire us into our next dream, which might lead to a lifelong fulfillment.

Yes. I like reading.

New blog network!

One of the many reasons I have been at a loss for words recently is the amount of time spent organizing the new group, and watching the silly detail involved.  Great Plains Atheists is becoming more and more involved in the community daily. One of the great tools at our disposal is the website, www.greatplainsatheists.org, and the many voices that contribute. Until now, My blog was the only one linked, and grateful for the hits I was.

Now a multitude of ideas, persuasions, and rants can be heard. And of course, from now on, I shall be posting directly to that blog simultaneously, sharing words in hopes of creating dialog.

Feel free to browse and comment, and of course, comment here or via a new email - contact@greatplainsatheists.org

Skepticism vs. Cynicism

Just entering the word Cynicism in google presents me with a problem I see in society at large. A synonym of Cynicism is Skepticism in this narrow google definition, and although they have largely been viewed as similar by many, it is so important that we take a moment and iron out why one is not productive, and the other is the foundation of modern civilization.

Originating in the Greek Skepsis, meaning inquiry, Skepticism is an approach of learning using doubt and critical thinking skills as opposed to authority, faith, or anecdotal evidence. Greek thinkers, such as Pyrrho, Epicurus, and the stoic philosophers such as Zeno, Seneca, Hierocles, tried to work out the best way to learn about the natural world, and in the process, the figured out that people are not necessarily honest to themselves. Richard Feynman astutely noted that the easiest person to fool is one's self, thus we must try to doubt our experiences and what we think we know.

Using Skepticism, we can attempt to verify evidence for our beliefs objectively, by removing human error. Of course this is the basis of the Scientific Method, and remains today the most reliable method of determining truth from fiction.

If I told you there was a UFO in my garage, you would be skeptical, or the world would call you credulous, gullible, or naive without asking for evidence. This is skepticism and modern education at work.

Cynicism on the other hand, is defined as: An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others.
In other words, it is an attitude defined by negativity, one of ripping down walls, rather than constructing them. These two are often confused and a rational thinker's attempt to bring reason into a conversation is often perceived as being cynical. 

Let's try to differentiate the two and remember that when someone is skeptical of your position, we should receive it well. When someone is being cynical, we should ask them to ask them to either find the flaw in our logic, or propose a better idea.  We can be very positive skeptics in this world. As for me, I am an optimist, and a hardened skeptic. They are far from mutually exclusive. In fact, I would go so far as to say that skepticism has made me more eager for life, increasing my curiosity and passion for the world, knowing we can move forward together!

Please comment on your experienced between the two concepts. Ten points to who can name the philosopher we get the word Cynic from...

The Harm of Faith

Christopher Hitchens once called faith the most over-rated virtue. Voltaire described it as what is beyond the power of reason to believe. Personally, I find it to be one of the most destructive forces in the modern world, and yet so many consider it benign.

So what is faith? If all things can be broken down philosophically into beliefs, and knowledge being beliefs of considerable certitude, then where does faith lie? It would seem when one has a belief which is not justified by reason, logic, or evidence, then perhaps we call that faith. Still, there are so many beliefs which are adjusted, altered or dropped due to new evidence.

That is because Faith is a belief that one REFUSES to give up regardless of the evidence against it.  As Nietzsche put it: "Faith: not wanting to know what is true." Faith is the ultimate weapon of religions and is isolated to one thing - God.

You see, despite how loosely the word is used in our every day vernacular, most of those examples are misapplied. Faith and trust are two different things, and since trust relies on experience and evidence, it is most often what people mean. You do not have faith in your spouse, you have trust. The same goes, for that matter, for doctors, the military, technology, transportation, etc... These are all things you have had a lifetime of experience with, and have come to trust them.

If someone has faith in their love, but then the relationship goes wrong, one would be considered crazy to still pursue the relationship with the same vigor afterwards. We often use faith to describe a sense of optimism we might have, however it is not to be confused with the faith of religion.

In a world where we are pushing so hard to improve education, to increase critical thinking skills, we find ourselves shocked by some of the zanier aspects of society and what they are willing to believe, but that does not concern me as much as the troves of people in the US who are simultaneously encouraged to apply skepticism,critical thinking, and faith in god.

So long as society thinks it is OK to believe in something for no reason at all, we will continue to be plagued by ideas which hold us down from progress. Climate change denial, creationism, job-creators, traditions, avoiding vaccines due to paranoia, alternative medicines, trickle-down economics, and so many more are simply held in place because some think it is OK to believe something despite the lack of evidence, or because of a poor application of logic.

Aron Ra described faith as the ultimate test of gullibility, to see how much you are willing to believe with the slightest evidence. So the question is, on the topic of faith, why is there anything encouraged to be believed without sufficient reason?

The Nature of Offense

Offense is such a fascinating and vibrant tool

It defines limitations in interaction. It can be reciprocated. It can be created, taken, and given. It can be said to be not offered yet received regardless (No offense). Originating from the Latin offensus, meaning 'collision' or 'knock', the synonym is how I find it most often used.

Offense as a Defense

In the world of the indefensible, the ideas that are too complicated, not well thought out, or based on no evidential reason whatsoever, offense comes out surprisingly quickly. How many times have you asked someone to explain their position on something *cough*Chiropractic* and they respond with a very personal answer or perhaps by making it an attack on them personally or their judgement?

Similarly, religious people, or those with faith often tend to bind the notions of their existence with that of their faith and reproach those who question the belief itself as an attack on their identity.

It would seem that whenever you have a double standard in society, offense will make it's way in an effort to resist change. Be it war on Christmas, prayer in classrooms, or gay marriage, offense has always played a role. But let me make it very clear. Offense is a choice.

Offense is a choice

See, I made it clear. No matter the topic, offense is a choice of those who claim to be offended, not those supposedly offering offense. If I told you your shoes looked horrible with that suit, it would be entirely on your shoulders to take note of my intentions, tone, and relationship with you and evaluate whether or not you want to be offended. If you chose to be offended, it is your choice. Remember that.

So when I say many of the things I say in public regarding religion, many find it prudent to take offense perhaps in an attempt to silence me or make me look bad. For too long has this led to some of the most important topics being ignored or suppressed. The very nature of the passive Midwestern society we live in must be confronted head on in order to get over the anti-intellectual state of mind we have so often submitted to.

Offense must occur

So before civil rights showed the racists and bigots of the world, it was considered offensive to call whites and blacks equals. Before the LGBT movement opened the world's eyes, gay and lesbian relationships were considered to be offensive. It used to be offensive to question your elders, tell people not to smoke around you, and to interact with your teachers. All progress will cause some level of offense.

When I am told by the liberal religious and accommodationist atheists that I should not be offensive to the notions of faith and religion, I have to ask why? Why, for example, is it OK for those of faith to believe that atheists are heathens contributing to the downfall of civilization (something I do not take offense to), but not OK for me to suggest that faith is detrimental to society (something people often take offense to)?

Should I be taking offense to others? Would it make a difference? No to both, in my opinion. I understand my ideas are offensive to some, and I also understand that is a necessary offense for the sake of progress. I ask the people in the world not to take offense as a defense, but to engage in dialog so we may better understand our positions. Let's build a better world together without such vacuous responses or reactions.

The World We Live In

In Darwin's Pharmacy, Richard M. Doyle speak of the nature of dreams, of how dreams, aspirations, and hopes shape reality. If the role of human imagination is to conceive of all these delightful ideas, and grip fervently onto them in hopes they become reality, then I feel my dreams for the future of society are justified if I can simply convince another human being that it would be beneficial to enact them.

 I dream of a world where we can live side by side in a skeptical society which desires to better itself via critical thinking, corrections, and the humility of doubt.  In each of these is a recipe for the improvement of the world, but together they would offer a civilization capable of forward thinking and eventually transcendence of our Pale Blue Dot.

When I am corrected in my language, I swallow my pride and say 'Thank You'. When I am informed of my errors, I adjust accordingly and apologize. When my deeds have been shown to be harmful, I subject myself to penance.

So why am I treated with such hostility when I would like to hold my friends, my relatives, or my colleagues to these standards? Is there a legitimate reason why these standards are not good enough for the world around me? Perhaps am I merely striking a chord with society's personal bubble and probing into otherwise untouched insecurities?

I would like to hear from the readers: Have I placed an unfair expectation on the rest of society? Why should we not expect our fellow humans to indulge in self-improvement? Why should we not nudge people to embrace themselves and tackle their fears?

How many times have people been enabled in their insecurities, fears, and weaknesses because we were afraid to offend? As a community we must offer support, friendship, and compassion, but not enable the worst parts of people. We must embrace idiosyncrasies,  yet drive out biggotry and intolerance.

Above all, the objective verification of evidence and the avoidance of subjective truth is integral for this system as it creates a sense of humility in the experience of the individual and simultaneously builds empathy and reason.

That is the world I want to live in. Who is with me?

New Optimism

A new wave of optimism has struck the Fargo area, an area marred by corporate interests, national religious lobby groups, and a drastic misrepresentation of the masses.

Since my previous posts, the last being in May, the Secular Community has thrived, providing an opportunity for a taboo-free discussion and a weekly venting for so many like myself who are discouraged from expressing critical thinking during the course of the average day.

The last half year has been eventful, with awareness campaigns in the streets, helping to bring together student organizations, secular movie showings, and group efforts in engaging the local scientific and religious communities.

Last month, The Interfaith network, hosted by David Myers, had a panel discussion with four atheists of diverse background on Concordia Campus, including Trevor Nelson, and Jeffrey Eide from the F-M Secular Community. We were received very well by a public hungry for dialog on a topic they are told not to discuss.

Lastly, let me shout out a boisterous congratulations to the entire group who helped to put together and plan the Great Plains Atheists, although I am not sure if they want to be named just yet. In the coming articles and entries, I intend to lay out our greater plans and explain why I am inspired by the efforts of my friends and partners.

It is good to be back on the blogosphere, so by all means, please browse my previous entries, many of them from the last of my travel days, and comment as much as possible. I hope this can become a source of dialog for the area.