ISQA…shutting down?
I’m not sure how many people have been regularly and avidly reading, hoping for a new post, (although my stats do tell me that I’m getting a sizable amount of people even now). I guess it’s time for me to point out that…I’ve started writing another blog. I’m cheating on ISQA for Irresistible (Dis)Grace.
(Dis)Grace has been rather good to me…and that isn’t to say that ISQA wasn’t…in fact, I sometimes think I should write to both, since they do have different subject matters…but as things have gone now, I’ve been able to write much more steadily for (Dis)Grace than for ISQA…it’s everything I should have done for ISQA but didn’t.
What’s the difference? Irresistible (Dis)Grace is a look at Mormon issues from the perspective of someone who grew up in the church but who doesn’t believe. ISQA was more of a personal life kind of blog, with emphasis on introversion, atheism, and some smartphone technology. So, I don’t know how well the crowd of ISQA would take to it and I don’t know how well the (Dis)Grace crowd would take to ISQA.
It’s a precarious situation. Maybe I should just combine have (Dis)Grace eat up what ISQA was about and then have everything work out just perfectly?!
In the end, I published 51 articles at ISQA from January 20 of this year to October 4 (I’m not counting this entry, of course!). With 5901 total views. Coooool.
Sorry, guys, I’m breaking the cardinal rules of blogging
Who ever decided to grant me my blogging license? Let’s go over some cardinal, yet unspoken rules of blogging that I break regularly:
1) Provide new constant regularly.
Well, I’ve never been a regular kind of guy…and a 2 month hiatus definitely doesn’t look good for my blogger resume.
2) Don’t apologize for blogging too rarely.
This very post is a useless post. I should be…blogging about something important…
3) Don’t break the fourth wall when blogging.
Seriously…I’m being conscious about readers and what they might think of my absence even though I’m pretty sure I’m not even at a level of fame where I should be worried about readers getting angry. Maybe if I had 29923048340928 people commenting my every word things would be different…but at best I have one or two comments per…10 entries.
4) Don’t meta-blog about the meta-blog rules.
Cardinal rules of blogging? It seems like I’m projecting my own wish for order and sentience to the blogosphere and giving people I don’t even know the power and authority to make “cardinal rules” of blogging when really, the sky is the limit.
So, um sorry profusely. 很不好意思 — very embarrassed. I can’t say that in the future I’ll get better at this, but I’m not quite at the point of closing the Report. I guess I should thank the trickle of people who find this blog as a result of search tags that I’ve talked about once or twice at best (Marilyn Manson is my biggest marketer, it appears).
Loophole of the golden rule
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
It sounds very nice…if you believe that everyone generally wants the same kind of things. When we make constructs of humanity, we take for granted how similar we are…yet how different we are…so we easily assume, “Everyone wants food; that’s a part of what it means to be human or even any kind of biological creature.” This extrapolates to other things which may or may not be true, “Everyone wants to be social; everyone wants to be a part of a group; everyone wants to have sex; etc.,” which may very well be the norms, but which may not be absolute standards. Even then, people try to say that they should be absolute (well, if someone wants to be alone, they are just shy and they really need to fix this up! Maybe so n’ so needs to get a hormone check to increase his or her libido?)
But even these are ok, because these are at least partially biological concerns. The golden rule’s (mis)application is often simpler: in social issues alone.
Take the believer of x. He’s very happy because of his religion and it has touched his life. He wants to share this good news so that everyone feels it. Others point out, “I really don’t care…seriously, leave me alone.” The believer thinks on this and realizes that before he had this great gift, he wasn’t necessarily ready to accept it either. But due to the acts of someone who was particularly persistent (or some other incident), he eventually received the Truth ™ and now he’s much better for it.
So…a person like this would say…”I’m just treating you as I would want to be treated…how is this bad?”
Well…everyone doesn’t want to be treated the same way. Should the BDSM enthusiast treat others as he or she wishes to be treated? It would introduce a lot of kink and spice to ordinary life, but…no.
At the same time, sometimes people posit a lesser rule…a silver rule, so to speak. Instead of saying: “Treat others as you would want to be treated,” it says “Do not treat others as you would not want to be treated.” Sounds better, right? I would not want pain inflicted on me, so I do not inflict pain upon others. Even for our BDSM fan, even if he does desire this, this is not what motivates his actions…his undesire for other things can direct what he does not do, instead.
The problem with the silver rule, though, is that it requires too little of us. If we were being robbed, we would want someone else to try to jump in and stop the thief. Or do something. But this is a golden rule kind of standard. The silver rule would prevent us from robbing someone (because we would not like to be robbed ourselves), but does not necessarily beckon us to aid. Theoretically, we might say, “Well, I would not like be be ignored in a time like this, so I will not ignore others,” but this is not the catch-all intention of the silver rule.
I think there’s a better rule though…that can compel us to action…instead of doing unto others what we would have them do unto us (which is too self-centered)…why not do unto others what they would have done unto themselves? Can we not believe that people know what they want?
Why some people don’t say anything
Some people don’t say anything because it’s incredibly difficult to do so without seeming completely angsty and trite. Just by writing this note, I risk exposing myself as an utterly irrelevant emo or something.
But here goes nothing.
We all have some kind of experience that alienates us from someone else. It might be that we alienate ourselves from some fringe group that we never will meet (which is good for us as long as we actually never meet and butt heads), or it might be that we alienate ourselves from the group perceived to be the majority. This is basic. It’s kinda that for-us-or-against-us dichotomy…even when we want to be in the middle, we indubitably then are in conflict with the people who say there is no middle.
OK, great, fine. So then, the idea we might have should be that it’s ok that we are alienated in some ways…this produces diversity. Diversity is great, right? We should be able to meet together as informed people and talk about different things and somehow come to a shared conclusion. It should be wonderful.
Many times, it does work out. But I think that for some issues, it simply cannot (or if I want to be optimistic, we simply won’t allow it to) work out. If we have some positions we are alienated from others on, then we also have some positions we are irreconcilably alienated from others on. It’s not that we don’t wish to see the other side…it’s that we are too limited in our ability. Our experiences completely go against it. Furthermore, we value our experiences highly…it gives us a bias of trusting our experience and that of friends over others…after all, if you see with your own two eyes, it’s got to be true, right? Someone who says otherwise is simply entertaining an untenable joke idea.
OK, so now we have alienated groups that can’t or won’t reconcile themselves each with the other. And in actuality, it might be that no issue is truly irreconcilable (after all, after years and years and years, people sometimes change in the least expected of ways)…but let’s assume this is rare or not the case. What next?
We don’t live in a void. We will meet other people sooner or later. When we do and conflicts arise, we have a few options:
1) Surrender our beliefs. This isn’t the same as having a genuine change of heart (because this would imply a different kind of conflict…not the deep-seated ones that are — or at least seem to be — irreconcilable.) This is when you give up your beliefs for another’s. It doesn’t really feel right, and you might justify, “well, it’ll be right in the long run” or something like that. But it’s not what you would normally have done because otherwise, you wouldn’t feel such opposition to it. You’d just do it.
2) Fight for our beliefs. You can try to get the others to surrender their beliefs. In the conflict of facing the wrongs you see, you can try to eliminate them.
3) Stay silent. For one of many reasons. Perhaps you want to “respect” their opinions even though you “disagree.” In this case, you might still have dialogue, but whenever it comes to the fight-or-flight point, you fly. Sometimes, this is the best case scenario though.
Silence presents a problem. It is like tolerance…tolerance is similarly a respect or permissive attitude concerning beliefs we don’t agree with. When we are tolerant, we may not say or do anything to the other person that could be conceived as a controversial attack, but definitely, we also do not give up our beliefs. We also do not see eye to eye. So, tolerance…in the realm of say…racism…or sexism…or homophobia…or things like this, is a kind of half-way point. Sure, it’s great to reduce and eliminate the consequences of each of these (harassment, things like that)…but tolerance doesn’t change people’s thoughts. It doesn’t change intentions. In fact, it creates hybrid new thoughts and attitudes that still miss the mark. Thoughts like, “I really hate this guy for x, y, or z reason, but I know it’s not socially acceptable for me to show it, so instead I’m going to act very cordially to this guy.”
What’s wrong with that? We now have people acting cordially!
It’s an act. The worst part about this is that the act is clear to each party. The hated guy sees and feels the awkwardness of the hater, and the hater feels awkward and wonders if the hated guy will catch on. Now, we are beyond communication. We are in a world of meta communication…Now communication is beyond just the act of talking…it’s the act of predicting how what we say will be interpreted. People don’t want to have to do this.
In public life, we can’t point this out. It’s like breaking the fourth wall — it’s not good form. We have to be silent about this walking on eggshells we are doing.
The next step might seem logical: be silent. Period.
Talking about issues will spur people of the 1st and 2nd response types. It is a war. Everyone fatigues of it sooner or later. On the other hand, if we are silent, and if we smile and make everything seem as if it’s right, then even if people can see through it, they are obligated not to say anything to us or else they are the aggressors. And over time, we get better at lying, even though at no point do our feelings or experiences change.
Extroverted shy people and more vocab
Elsewhere, I began to lament about the extroverted shy people who make my life worse.
What do I have against extroverted shy people? Well, not much directly, but indirectly, their presence allows others to project their problems on to me.
What do I mean? People confuse “extroverted and shy” with “introvert.”
I should probably explain a few operative definitions — whenever I bring this up, at least one or two people tell me that I’ve made a grave mistake: there’s no such thing as an extroverted shy person. Unlike other denotative/connotative issues, I might be on the losing side of this war…but I have a kind of theory about this…
Extroversion and introversion are personality types. They are covert. One represents a drawing of energy or a preference (I guess we prefer to have energy, right?) from outside sources…like other people. This is extroversion. The other represents a drawing of energy (or preference) from inside sources…ourselves…
Does this say anything about the actions of a person? No, not really. It says little more about the actions of a person than my preference for cheesecake over apply pie does.
Now…wait a minute…if I prefer cheesecake, then doesn’t that imply I frequently pursue and eat cheesecake?
Not necessarily. Perhaps philosophically, I should pursue cheesecake. That’s what will make me happiest. I probably should not have apple pie and instead have cheesecake (actually, that’s another judgment call, but ok, fine — btw, thanks Mill!).
Actions…are different than preferences and personalities. My act of eating cheesecake is different than my preference to do it
So, I think that when people commonly try to describe what they feel extroverts and introverts “do,” they actually describe different actions.
I think they describe things closer to “reservation” and “boldness.” Maybe reservation is framed as “shyness” or something else and boldness is framed as gregariousness or being outgoing, but I think all of these are much better approximations to overt qualities. We can see what it means to be reserved. We can see what it means to be shy. We can see what it means to be bold or outgoing.
So, you might say that extroverts should be outgoing and bold. Because that allows them to get energy in the way they know best. You might say that introverts should be reserved (I wouldn’t quite say shy because that has some other baggage to it), because that allows them to get energy in the way they know best. A cheesecake lover should eat cheesecake; an apple pie lover should eat apple pie.
So, I think the problem arises when someone who is one personality type or the other mismatches activities. An extrovert who deprives himself of social contact (for whatever reason) drains himself. An introvert that doesn’t get his personal space drains himself.
So, I’d say that an extroverted person who is shy has a problem of not getting what they want. And I think these people know it too. They say, “Oh…I want to be out there…but I just can’t.” Maybe they’re anxious. Maybe they’re afraid. Ok, whatever. But the thing is…they want it. They should work on getting it.
As Bernardo Carducci of the Shyness Research Center points out:
“Shyness has more in common with extroversion than with introversion. Shy people truly want to be with others, so they make the effort, but when they are rejected or ostracized, they disconnect.”
Why does this pose a problem for me? People too often think that introversion doesn’t really exist. Introversion is just extroverts who have denied themselves for so long that now they try to convince themselves that they are introverts. But really, the proof in the introvert-is-false pudding is that, deep down inside, they want to be social.
This fails on many levels. You can be introverted and not shy. You can be introverted and be outgoing (so I’d really say that shyness is problematic because it’s a limitation on peoples *actions*…where as introversion is just personality.) You can actually be introverted and outgoing enough that you have the exact opposite (but similarly disastrous problem) as shy extroverts — you stray too far away from your precious cheesecake and blow apple pie chunks.
Putting it in a slightly different hypothesis…when we have drives, we have signals that let us know when we need to fulfill that drive. When we are hungry (drive for food) and particularly when we have a craving for something (drive for a particular kind of food), then we know we should eat. So, let’s say that we have a drive for socializing…when we are “lonely,” we go out and do stuff with friends.
So, assuming one isn’t blocked from meeting this need (by, say, shyness or social anxiety disorder or something else), then one should assume that an introvert, like an extrovert, will go out when he pleases. The extrovert simply has a greater desire (and gains greater pleasure) from doing so. A cheesecake lover wants cheesecake more and for him it tastes better. Now, even if cheesecake lovers are a stable majority of a population, it’s just kinda silly to say that people who don’t intrinsically love cheesecake are broken and should stop “denying” that they love cheesecake (funnily enough, the same argument seems to apply to people who think homosexuality is a choice…although I’m sure people will point out that tastes in food are surprisingly mutable) — but perhaps it isn’t so silly to tell a cheesecake lover who is too afraid to dig in to work on that denial.
Oh yay, a good blog that address this too: Shrinking Violet Promotions
ok; keep it cool everyone…
Words really do mean nothing anymore (part 2)
I was thinking long and hard about a series of “revelations” from the mouths of others that I have received…I realized that many people don’t think this stance: “I don’t believe in gods/higher powers/spiritual forces” is an atheist stance.
And as I ranted about in the absurd 21% of American atheists believe in god, it seems that some people actually think this answer: “I believe in gods/higher powers” is an atheist stance — even where “I don’t believe in gods” is not!
What is the world coming to? It’s kinda like when they say people will exchange the natural use of things for that which is unseemly. I feel like it’s time for me to jump over to the evangelists and chastise now. In the hopes that Jesus may come again and spite not only the unbelievers but also the people who have no freaking idea what things mean.
Have I made my tirade that agnosticism is not an acceptable alternative to the atheism/theism question? I don’t think I have…I’ll do it pretty soon then.
I mean, I would think that people would get this eventually…but now I understand how Jonathan Swift felt after people gasped in horror at his modest proposal. Some people never catch on.
Never mind the popular idea that “disbelief” no longer means “don’t believe” or “lack belief.”
I understand why it must be done though…by criticising strong atheism (I believe there are no gods) alone and making it the only way to be atheism, you get past a lot of bullets. You might be able to claim that atheists require “faith” or that they are “stubborn” and have “decided a position and will not budge no matter how much evidence is provided to them.” You can divorce yourself from the concerns of common atheists and people who…gasp…you know who are in Satan’s way of being converted/deconverted. But as long as you can point out it’s ok not to believe (and you don’t have to call yourself atheist), then you can create a buffer zone for people to avoid the real evil of stating positively, “There is nothing.”
Practical Faith
Dan is trying to learn math. Dan has always been terrible at math though. He’s gotten poor grades in class and poor grades on tests, has tried studying with several people to get several kinds of study tips, and even his teachers are confounded as to why he can’t apply the concepts. Math is supposed to follow very logical rules as Dan knows, so as long as he knows the rules, he should be improving. Yet…Dan isn’t.
Dan is still confident though, that one day he’ll do better. He still keeps trying to improve. Every time he learns a new technique, he feels confident that he’ll do better on the next homework assignment and do better on the test.
Yet when he and all the friends who helped him receive their tests back and all his friends have decent grades — Bs, As, maybe perfect scores! — Dan can only look at his latest F.
He’s taken aback for a moment, but no matter…he’ll work harder next time. Practice makes perfect, after all. Or as my old band director said, perfect practice makes perfect (perfect).
Why should Dan think that practice will make perfect? It never has for him. Why should Dan think he’ll do better next time? He has never done well before. Why should Dan think that he’ll *ever* be good at math? He has *never* been good at math before.
Dan might be optimistic. Whatever the case, Dan has confidence in his abilities. A confidence that most people would say is essentially whenever you try something new…if you want to improve, you have to believe in your ability to improve. After all, in many cases, improvement *isn’t* immediate. Continuing even a week further might be the difference between success and failure.
This belief, this confidence, is nothing more than a practical form of faith. Despite all of the evidence, Dan still maintains the vision of an uncertain future where *he* will be an A student.
Faith is something we actually use every day.
I’ve been toying around with this idea for a while, and I think that this is *somewhat* tenable (of course, at the back of my mind I feel that someone’s going to thrash this one to shreds.) If faith is a hope for things unseen (or…things we don’t have personal evidence for) that are true…then it should be something we use all the time…the difference between religious faith and practical faith is simply an issue of timeliness.
Religions suggest certain truths too…concerning cause and effect relationships between how we act and what will happen. The problem? A lot of the “effects” are very sketchy for us who live in the world of the living…we can’t really test so easily if when we die, our souls (if they exist) will be judged and go to some end state. It requires us to wait for death or for eternity or for whatever first. so, without the evidence, the only way we can reliably keep on believing is through faith.
The conundrum is that you don’t have faith in everything…so how are you to decide which things you ought to have faith in and which things you ought not? Be default, faith doesn’t really work on the same scales of evidence that a reasoned decision would, so this doesn’t help. At the same time, you have to discriminate meaningfully between different “demands” of faith.
OK, so I lied. You don’t necessarily have absolutely no evidence. Dan doesn’t have absolutely no reason to believe that he won’t improve. He actually can see evidence in others’ experiences, even if that evidence doesn’t seem to be currently holding up for him. One might say that he has to make a larger leap of faith to assume that he will remain different and a failure even when these study techniques improve everyone else’s scores.
But religions also do a little of this work too. This is why religions are also social institutions. And even if one doesn’t believe in the religion, and even if one points out all the things that don’t necessarily make sense at first or second glance, it does produce evidence of improvement in many people’s lives. If a church can inspire people to live in a way that pulls them out of their destitution and pulls them out of their rough spots, then even if a religion isn’t true, it still may very well be useful to a person. It might make more personal sense for someone who has first had faith in the “practical” aspects of a religion and has tested these aspects out and then gained a testimony of these practical pieces of advice to extend his faith to the less testable aspects…in the same way Dan doesn’t assume he’s “different” from the majority of humanity in his math-learning abilities (regardless of if he actually is or not), one could come to the conclusion to assume that the “truthfulness” of the religious aspects of a religioni will not be different from the majority of the other teachings.
Is this a rocksolid defense of religious faith? No. Does this prove a religion is true? No way. But the question of why someone might have faith shouldn’t be that hard to answer. Why you or why I or why Dan has faith is completely different though.
Why I am not a linguistics major, or, Framing atheism
I like to think I am a stickler for definitions. I don’t claim to be perfect in my use of vocabulary…but if someone notes I’m using a word incorrectly and I find I am wrong, I’ll adjust things. I understand the desire to defend a position, so I’ll do that as well…but convincing evidence is…well…convincing. People have gotten at me for arguing terms and definitions though; they say it’s irrelevant to whatever point is really at hand.
I disagree. I think that the way we use and define terms changes the battlefield. There’s a lot of terms for it in a lot of different fields, but I think framing is a pertinent one. Framing changes the connotations of words we have…it demonstrates the evolutionary properties of language. I’m actually not sure if linguistics uses the same kind of terminology…wouldn’t that be funny if they didn’t…
Anyway…I was going through old blogs I’ve never seen before and probably won’t see again (I have a very sadistic mind, it seems…I know I’m going to come out irritated at something, but I still do it.)
So, I was reading an alleged “Case Against Atheism: Atheist Scientists.“And I was thinking, “oh ho ho, this should be amusing.
…or make me want to hurt people mentally.
Well, I read it…and I thought, “ok, ok, so there are problems with this line of thought, but ok, I’ll go with it.”
And then I got to a particular line…
Do take note that atheism is not even the lack of belief in a god, but the belief of NO god. It is the reinforcement of the negative absolute statement.
Wat? (Yep, this statement doesn’t even deserve the h.) I mean, this is such a confident statement, but it is so wrong.
There are multiple atheist stances…there’re implicit stances and and explicit stances. There’s a weak stance and a strong stance. The weak stance exactly is “lack of belief in a god,” so for someone to say atheism is not this is intriguing.
I read on to the comments, hoping that this would turn hilarious eventually.
At first, it was just theists hi fiving…ok, yes, that’s good. And then someone named Simen, thankfully, pointed out:
No, that’s wrong. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. Strong atheism is the positive belief that there is no god.
Good for him. Was it over?
Nope. Then came people trying to use the DICTIONARY in their favor.
Thanks for your note.
Just wondering, is there a difference in degree change the definition of atheism itself? Strong and weak atheism… im not that sure. Isn’t strong atheism juz a person who conform strictly with the atheistic standards? Well, according to dictionary.comAtheism is
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.While the American Heritage Dictionary state atheism to be:
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.So yeah, im not quite sure about your alternate definition… perhaps you might wanna verify the sources?
…Guys, this is framing at its best…as well as some ignorance thrown in. Let me dissect. The ignorance is in the idea of strong and weak atheism. We KNOW what strong and weak atheism are, so this idea that a strong atheist is just someone who “conforms strictly with atheistic standards” (and what are those, I wonder? Atheism does not have a lot of standards other than “lack of belief in god”…) is just silly.
But then I realized there was a deep misunderstanding. See…when I see definition 2 for the first subset and definition 1 for the second, I see this word…”disbelief” and I recognize clearly that this is “a lack of belief.” The other definition, of a BELIEF (see, active belief, no dis- in front of it) THAT THERE ARE NO GODS, represents strong atheism…but disbelief…it is a rejection of belief (which leaves an absence of belief)..it is possible a refusal of belief (which leaves an absence of belief)…it is not a belief in the nonexistence of whatever the countering belief was. Why is this important? Well, all of atheism isn’t strong. Strong atheism actually has different arguments than weak atheism…because when you claim the nonexistence of something, then there are a number of hoops you have to go through (either prove its inconsistency or something like that). Lack of belief…a disbelief…just means you don’t have sufficient convincing evidence.
I can make this even more simple by putting both in the form of belief. A weak atheist believes no gods. A strong atheist believes no gods exist. So, this existence part really changes the ballpark. Alternatively, a weak atheist does not believe in gods. A strong atheist does not believe in the existence of gods. If I say, “I don’t believe you,” or “I don’t believe in you” this is not the same as saying, “I don’t believe you exist!”
But…for these guys, these definitions solidified their frame!
Nice post… it is good to see you properly defined atheism not as merely a lack of belief, but as a disbelief. If anyone doubts it they should check out my last post, which shows this definition is accurate.
Interesting…I wonder what the one-word phrase for lack of belief is?
Friend Simen points out:
Definition of disbelief, dictionary.com:
–verb (used with object)
1. to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings.
–verb (used without object)
2. to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.
m-w.com:
transitive verb : to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive verb : to withhold or reject belief
As you see, no active belief in the opposite.
But then…what next?
y are we so caught up with definitions? haa.. it’s kinda ludicrous.. that we’re playing word games.. haha.. what are words..subjective usage to get across a meaning.. which mite not fully translate wat u really mi aft all. haha..
WAT? So now, definitions don’t matter. They are just word games. Subjective usage to get across a meaning. But of course…only one person’s subjective usage seems to mean anything…this is framing.
Simen, there’s a difference between lack of belief in god(s) and belief in *no* god. If you equate atheism in that way, then you don’t have an enhanced term but 2 quite different terms; with the same word which causes a problem.
No…atheism is an *active* disbelief in any god whatsoever. An atheist is someone who has decided to stop believing in any god whatsoever. And this is crucial because no matter what proof, solid or not, you might show them, they will refuse to believe, just like Jesus said, if they don’t believe the Bible, even if someone came back from the dead they would still not believe.
And it is solidly enshrouded in the minds of people. The irony is that this narrative does not actually reject weak atheism…the lack of belief. This guy tries to chastise Simen for having a word with multiple meanings (which, unlike something like “cleave” or any other autoantonym that has opposing definitions, the two alleged definitions for atheism that these guys reject actually both fit under the idea of atheism…without god. A. theism) but then the guy says, “An atheist is someone who has decided to stop believing in any god whatsoever.”
OK, well, even if I take issue with “stop” and “decided” (after all, you don’t come fresh from your mom with a belief…and it might not be your decision to make)…the real point is…”an atheist does not believe in any god whatsoever.” Check this out: “does not believe.” That sounds like…”disbelieves” or “lack of belief.” And even further, “does not believe” does not sound like “believes no god exists.” a god could exist (which is a question of knowledge, gnosticism vs. agnosticism, but that’s another note), but an atheist does not believe.
Why? Well, this guy gets it wrong. He says that atheists refuse to believe no matter what…in reality, all an atheist wants is credible evidence. Evidence that should not require faith and should fit within logic and reason. Without this evidence, he lacks a belief. Now, a theist will be sure to point out everything they feel is evidence, but I like the theme of this blog entry…one very important piece of evidence is a religious experience…some confirmation…that the theist then backs his faith up. And even a religious experience does not conclude a god exists (another day’s note, maybe.)
I really could go on, because the comments do. But this note is already too long. Actually, the rest of the comments give me some hope. Oh well.
Defense of the Internet, or, Google is not making us stupid
I’ve been linked to this article in The Atlantic by Nick Carr before…but I never really dug deeply into it until recently…Is Google Making Us Dumb?
It sounded to me like some relic of the past era, really…a way for old people to cling back to their superior generations long past (didn’t you know…when they were kids, kids actually respected their elders…and there weren’t diseases and mental illnesses such as we have now. People just sucked it up as they walked 20 miles in the snow up hill both ways to school.)
But it strikes a chord in me. I’ve gotten into discussions with many people who assume that…if you don’t read for fun you must surely be some kind of neanderthal. You’re anti-intellectual. Now, we have a scapegoat — it is Google and the rest of the internet’s fault that we want things NOW and aren’t patient enough to dig for it (but digg is still ok).
The sentiment isn’t completely unfounded. I know too many people on MySpace or Facebook who write in their Favorite Books section: “Books? Who reads those?!” In varying levels of spelling or grammar creativity or color of language, no less. Looking at their works doesn’t inspire confidence. These are people who feed the coffers of pop culture…that impressive, yet “inferior” bastard cousin of “high culture.” MTV over museums, things like that. You don’t have much hope for the future when you hear them talk about what they are doing, what they have done, or what they want to do with their lives.
So I understand partially why it is shocking when I mention I have few favored novels (ironically, though, I am fond of the behemoth works in George R.R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire series…but they are oh…so…long). Do I not have aspirations? Do I not think deeply? Personally, I just don’t get into it very easily. People immediately sour their opinion if I point out the fact that books are just words on paper, and with fiction…those words mean incredibly little. AT LEAST with nonfiction, I learn something useful every time…so that keeps me going for more. With the internet though, it’s even better, because I am not required to invest massive amounts of time to get information.
But silly me, the internet doesn’t count as reading! It is a perversion of what is supposed to be a higher, better way of novels and treatises.
I used to defend my position with something by Annie Dillard we had to analyze in AP English years ago:
The written word is weak. Many people prefer life to it. Life gets your blood going, and it smells good. Writing is mere writing, literature is mere. It appeals only to the subtlest senses–the imagination’s vision, and the imagination’s hearing–and the moral sense, and the intellect. This writing that you do, that so thrills you, that so rocks you and exhilarates you, as if you were dancing next to the band, is barely audible to anyone else. The reader’s ear must adjust down from the loud life to the subtle, imaginary sounds of the written word. An ordinary reader picking up a book can’t yet hear a thing; it will take half an hour to pick up the writing’s modulations, its up and downs and louds and softs.
It seemed so simply true…being able to get absorbed into a novel is just a private sense for a select few. In any case, you have to warm up to novels, so even if you have this sense, there are other media which are much more immediate. Video games, movies, and now…the internet.
The only thing I couldn’t reconcile was…how could I say that not having a patience for reading was as good as or better than having a sense for it? This discovery only allowed for pity — just as some people pity people who would much rather listen to pop music over classical (just because) — and not equality.
So, eventually, I came back to Carr’s article…and this time, it had a hyperlink to Scott Karp’s blog…so I decided to click into it (and Karp had some insightful things to say about the difference between quoting and linking: [and maybe my senses are dull, but I sense some animosity — Karp actually has a lot to say regarding Carr’s article]).
The plot thickens when Karp’s actual words are put into context: instead of lamenting his loss of voracity in reading (as Carr infers), he asks if instead, this isn’t an evolution that the internet allows us.
It makes a lot of sense to me exactly as he describes: we are making a transition from the old, dominant mode of thinking linearly…to a new mode of thinking based on networking…loose association…jumping from point to point.
When writing articles (however rarely I do so), I wonder if I can herd everything into a sensible article. I have a bunch of jumbled roads of information I want to travel down and I have a lot I want to link. It all makes sense to me…but only in context to the stream of thought which unfortunately cannot be easily conveyed.
So, then, what if the answer is as Karp says later on in his Connecting the Dots of the Web Revolution?
Maybe I don’t need 250 page books anymore because the web enables me to connect ideas and create narratives that I used to depend on book authors to do for me, because I wasn’t able to access all the information and connect all the dots myself.
ISQA Report 
