Everyone, at some point, hears about how, neurologically, females are more emotional whereas males are more logical. It's become a kind of cliche aphorism about the differences between the genders, and the most frequently cited "fact" to back up statements like, "it's impossible to understand women."
(Of course, I am no neurologist, and so can't say definitively whether or not that "fact" is actually true)
When I'm at my most cynical, I sometimes amuse the idea that women, being irrational creatures of emotion, are religious because they're too dumb to reason their way out -- and their rational husbands are religious just to get laid.
On Thanksgiving, as I sat through a special Christian Science service, being one of only, like, eight males in the room, I yet again entertained that cynical, misogynistic view. The service progressed like CS services usually do -- so slowly that any drama or passion is completely nonexistent -- and then the fun started; time was turned over to the congregation to give testimonies of healing.
In Mormon testimony meetings, it's all about "feeling the spirit" and "having prayers answered." Everyone testifies of the "truthfulness" of the Gospel, and gives stories of times where they "felt the promptings of the spirit." With Christian Scientists (who, in my opinion, are neither Christians nor scientists) it's all about personal healings. After all, sickness, disease, and death are just symptoms of the belief that we're sick, diseased, or dying. Put your faith in God, they say, and renounce these false, material beliefs!
It's interesting to see the same passion present in both Mormon and Christian Scientist testimony meetings. Both groups firmly believe that the truthfulness of something is measured by the amount of force you use to say it, not by such paltry things as evidence and logic.
Silly scientists, you can't just present evidence! You've got to shout louder and cry harder! That's what makes an argument correct!
Anyway, this experience has made me deeply curious. When it comes to Mormon testimony meetings, what's the ratio of male to female testimony bearers? And, even better, what's the ratio of sobbing, emotional males to sobbing, emotional females? Are females really more emotional than males, or is it a product of your upbringing?
If it's a product of your upbringing, the ratio of crying males to crying females in testimony meetings should be roughly 1:1, given that crying is such an essential part of "feeling the spirit," an experience which is required by Mormons for social acceptance.
So, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to attend Fast and Testimony Meetings for the Ventura 3rd and 5th Wards for the next few months, and I'm going to keep a running tally on my blog for:
Number of males : Number of females
Number of emotional males : Number of emotional females
Number of older people : Number of younger people
... and maybe a few more, though I'll have to figure out quickly since this Saturday is a Fast and Testimony Meeting. Expect another post about this soon!
Just like before, the author over at *Spock High Five* has written a post wondering why anyone could be an Atheist. Due to the way she wrote it, however, this post is going to read like the "short answer" section of an Atheist exam.
First, I really like this. It shows that she's put some thought into what it's like to be an Atheist. Of course, it's clear that she hasn't fully taken off her subjective Mormon glasses to ponder the issue, but that's okay; mine are sufficiently removed, and I can answers these questions from a purely Atheistic perspective.
Second, a lot of these answers will be very similar, since she repeats the "If you don't go to happyland after you die, what's the point of living?" question several times.
So, let's start the exam, shall we?
... if God doesn't exist, how can we ever understand the human race?
With science. It's really as easy as that. Everything we know about the human race comes from science.
Why are we here?
13.8 billion years ago, the Big Bang happened. Our universe expanded from a single point, and matter flew out in all directions. Lots of it. Gravity pulled the matter into orbits around each other and, through the accretion process, matter gradually coalesced into large globs of gasses, many of which became so dense, so big, and so extremely hot that they began a process called nuclear fusion. The matter around these super-hot balls of gas gradually, over millions of years, formed into planets.
On one of these planets evolution took place. We don't know how it started, since we can't exactly travel four billion years into the past, but we do know that the only thing we'd need is a single object which replicated itself, but not perfectly. See abiogenesis for more details.
Our existence doesn't require God at all. In fact, in light of all that we now know, God seems like such a boring and childish answer to explain our origins.
What's the point of science, physics, or math?
I don't want to die. You don't want to die. I like living. So do you. I like being able to relax and type in my blog, without needing to worry about whether I'll have food tomorrow, or whether I'll die of some disease. Science, physics, and math help us to understand the world around us, help us to live our lives easier and in more comfort, and help us to prolong our lives and prevent death.
Also, it's just fascinating to learn these things.
Why don't we just live contently in our knowledge that none of this means anything?
Anyway, if I gave you a car, and I was going to pay for all the gas, insurance, etc., but told you I'd be taking it back in a year, would you still enjoy it? Would you still enjoy being able to drive wherever you want, without any restrictions whatsoever? Would it be meaningless to you simply because you didn't get to keep it for all eternity?
Of course not. You'd be like, "hell yeah!" and drive all over the place, all the time. Yes, you won't have that car forever, but it'll still be profoundly meaningful to you while you have it.
Plus, it's all about what you, personally, find to be meaningful. Do you find socializing with people to be meaningful? Then do it, and enjoy it. Do you find accomplishing things to be meaningful? Then accomplish things, and enjoy it. Ultimately, the meaning of life is a very personal decision. What makes your life meaningful?
What's the point in progressing, other than getting cool things, if it's all gunna be worthless in the end?
Ahhh... what pointedly Mormon bias. Materialism really isn't the satanic, reprehensible, evil thing you think it is. Just "getting cool things," and not worrying about accomplishing things or "progressing," can be very meaningful to some people. Others find a sense of accomplishment very fulfilling. It's all about what you, personally, decide makes your life meaningful.
When is the end?
When we die, unless you're referring to humanity. In which case, so long as the universe doesn't collapse in on itself, we will survive indefinitely, all because of our tenacity, our intelligence, and, above all, science.
Is everything just going to explode and our entire existence forgotten?
Maybe. But consider my car example again. If the human race ends up being wiped out millions of years from now, and our entire existence is lost and forgotten, never to be unearthed again, who cares? That doesn't make our lives any less meaningful, whatsoever. It just means no one will know how great my life was.
Like, what's the point? How are you happy?
I'd say, figuratively, that you "have no idea how happy I am being Atheist," but I'd actually be literally right; you really don't, and can't, know how exhilarating, how totally life-affirming, how inspiring, and how profoundly amazing our existence, our universe, and everything really is. And to think it all demonstrably came about from natural processes!
Just sit down and think about how you're aware of your existence. Then think about how amazing it is that you can be aware that you're aware of your existence! It's just so, profoundly, awe-inspiring!
Isn't the real truth about Christmas -- that your parents and friends have been thinking about what you'd like best, and spent money to make you happy -- infinitely more satisfying and fulfilling than believing a Magic Red Man is using those gifts to make you act good all year?
Do you search out truth every second of every day?
Eventually, you reach a point where you say, "God is massively improbable. And besides, He's kinda a childish idea, anyway," and leave it at that. Then you go about your day, enjoying life.
Of course, getting to that point requires a lot of thought, contemplation, and consideration. It's much like an existential crisis and a mid-life crisis at the same time. But hey, to ironically quote what Mormons think Jesus said, "I never said it would be easy, I only said it would be worth it."
Doesn't that get depressing?
It was. There's a time in every Atheist's journey where he/she suddenly realizes, and begins to truly understand, that he/she will die. It's scary. It paralyzes you, it consumes you, and it stays forcefully in the front of your mind constantly, demanding, "What are you gonna do about me, huh?"
Of course, you get over that relatively quickly and, once you've done so, you realize that death is what makes life so beautiful. Richard Dawkins words it very well at the end of his documentary, The Root of All Evil?, specifically starting at 1:30:
Why not believe in God, wouldn't you might as well?
You're not the first to make this argument. This was originally presented by Blaise Pascal in the seventeenth century. "Pascal's Wager," as it's called, is a laughably bad argument to believe in God.
Okay, test is done. Gimme my A+ and let's go grab a McRib while they're still around!
Last night in my Philosophy class, we finally got to the subject I've been waiting months for -- Theology. You see, God is a subject of serious debate in Philosophy. What is the nature of God? How can we have free will if He is omniscient? Why is there evil if He is omnipotent and benevolent?
My teacher is big on Socrates and Plato, not so interested in Aristotle, and would definitely prefer to avoid the real philosophical issues, like nihilism, determinism, atheism, and all the other things that actually matter. He refers to this part of philosophy as "the valley of the shadow of death", and has frequently stated his intention to not just walk through it, but sprint.
Well, Mr. Philosophy Teacher, you hadn't anticipated that I'd be in your class!
His brief overview of theology went like this:
"Any questions or comments before we start?"
At this point, this older guy -- thick mustache, large muscles, T-shirt with an American flag on it... the obvious Bible-hugging conservative in every way -- raises his hand and says, "I don't see how this is even an issue. I mean, all of time is based on God (like A.D., B.C., etc.). How can anyone question Him?"
So I politely raised my hand. "We're only retrospectively basing time on Christian events. The Mayans didn't use a calendar like ours at all. The Greeks didn't say 'Oh, my good sir, I was born in 600 B.C.'. We only started basing our calendars off Jesus years and years later."
(It didn't convince him at all, I'm sure)
Our teacher, after taking other comments, started to get into the real "meat" of the topic:
"Philosophers began to question the existence of God and discovered the importance of Faith. Faith is believing in order to see.
A few people commented on this. I raised my hand and asked, "What's the difference between Faith and, say, wishful thinking and confirmation bias?"
My teacher then went on a rant defining what "wishful thinking" and "confirmation bias" meant and then made my day. He started to explain how faith was different from those two and... he paused, and you could just see his brain stammer, like it was saying, "Well, damn, what is the difference?"
(I nudged my ex-CS friend on his path away from Christian Science by saying, "isn't it funny how God never heals amputees?", and I freely confess that I harbor fantasies of my "what's the difference between faith and..." question having that effect on some people in the class)
My philosophy teacher isn't one to adhere exclusively to logic (he's big on Socrates and Plato, after all), so he was able to save face by defining Faith again, as though I hadn't asked the question. One guy in the class raised his hand to respond to my question, and said that the dividing line between faith and wishful thinking was that questioning your beliefs is "going against your religion".
It is going against your religion. If it's true, it should be able to withstand scrutiny.
Anyway, during the break I received some weird looks. During the first half of the class I had freely confessed to being an Atheist (one of the girls in the front row had said, "I'm an Atheist, but I think it's bad to argue because no one will change their mind", so I jumped in with "I'm an atheist, and I'd like to present the other side of that coin..."), and evidently an outspoken Atheist was something they'd never seen before, or something.
After the break, my teacher blitzed through the last part without taking comments (it was getting late), which was a little annoying. He brought up Thomas Aquinas' ridiculous proofs for God and the Watchmaker argument. I wanted to comment on them (especially when he said that the Watchmaker argument was "the most convincing argument for God"), but he didn't give me the chance.
So, I'm going to trash those arguments now, just to get it off my chest:
The Uncaused Cause argument
Every event is caused by a prior event, therefore there must have been a First Cause. God is an entity that can cause things without needing to be caused. Therefore, God must have been the First Cause. Therefore, the fact that things happen proves God.
Or, in a more logically straightforward way:
1) Given: God exists. 2) Given: God can cause things without being caused 3) Every event is caused by something else 4) There must have been a First Cause, which doesn't need to be caused, because otherwise there would be an infinite regress -----THEREFORE----- 5) God must be that First Cause
The only rebuttal necessary for Thomas Aquinas' stupid arguments is this: "In order for God to exist in the conclusion, He must exist in the premise." Why not skip all the logical foreplay and just say "God exists; therefore God exists"?
The Watchmaker argument
Everything that is complex must have a designer. Cars and buildings don't just form on their own, and they're really complex. We don't need to see the carmaker or see the car made to know there was a carmaker.
If you were walking down the beach and you found a watch, you'd be like, "Hey, this obviously had a designer." How can you look at nature and the universe and not realize that it obviously has a designer?
If we only knew a watch was designed because it was complex, we wouldn't be able to distinguish a watch from the natural objects around it. We know a watch has a maker because we're familiar with the concept of watchmaking, not because it's complex.
"Most convincing argument for the existence of God", indeed. Did God have a designer? He is complex, after all. And apparently complexity necessitates a creator.
For more information on Dianetics and how to attend the seminar:
Please call: 805-644-3993 or e-mail: buenaventura@scientology.net
And call I did. In my naivete, I assumed this seminar was something my ex-CS friend and I could go to, like a church service for Xenu. I said I'd seen their ad at my college and that I wanted to know more about the seminars. The woman who answered asked me how much I knew about Dianetics and I figured I shouldn't go on a rant about how it was written by a Science Fiction author, or about how I have friends who are part of Anonymous.
I said I didn't know much, but that it had something to do with Scientology.
She went on a little rant about how Dianetics had nothing to do with hypnotism, and explained the difference between Dianetics and Scientology. Now, I'd always assumed the difference between Dianetics and Scientology was the difference between The Bible and Catholicism, but that isn't how she described it. She said that Scientology was the method or system of applying the stuff in Dianetics to your life.
... which kinda sounds like a Bible-Catholicism relationship to me, but whatever.
She asked me if I was interested in Dianetics. I said I was. She said she didn't know a lot about the seminars, and that "Isabel" would know more. I stayed on hold for a while. Isabel was apparently helping someone "just like me" and was unavailable. Could she get my number?
I gave her my number.
Now I'm sitting here, writing about my experience and doing a bit of research on Google. Apparently the talk about hypnosis was actually the first step in the process, apparently these seminars are individual and quite personal, and apparently they last all day Saturday and most of the day Sunday.
I kinda wish Scientology was like other religions, with free services on Sundays and free food afterward. But alas, Scientology doesn't work that way. My friend and I aren't going to be able to walk into a large room and hear tales about the galactic warlord Xenu, body thetans, DC-8 Bomber-esque spaceships nuking millions of space aliens, or even just a small lecture about the basics of that little Dianetics pamphlet you get.
I confess, if I had multiple lives, I'd likely throw one into being a Scientologist; all this weird, ritualistic, pseudo-intellectual "mind" stuff appeals very strongly to my inner geek. But, unfortunately, I only have one life, and, as such, would like to spend it on something demonstrably worthwhile.
Scroll down to the very bottom of my blog. No really, do it. You'll see this little gadget I have down there from StatCounter. I love this little thing so much. It shows me many things, but the most fascinating (and irritating) thing to see is what people searched for to find me.
For example, every now and then people google "Sweeney Todd part 1", more than likely looking to torrent the Tim Burton film. Of course, they invariably land on my posts about Sweeney Todd, stay there for about 3 seconds, probably think to themselves, "this is jst sum stoopid blog the words make my brain hurt", and go about their day.
The other one I get all the time is "why nihilism doesn't work". Can you ask a more biased question? Who says it doesn't work? It's workin' great for me! It makes me want to make a blog entry where I use that phrase over and over again, just to ensure that googlers find it. Then I'll trap them, convert them, and make them run back to their philosophy teachers, crying.
But most people find my blog by searching things like this:
"The most significant difference between the exposition and the recapitulation in sonata-allegro form is"
"Sonata form for dummies."
"sonata allegro form"
"difference between the exposition and the recapitulation in sonata-allegro"
"sonata allegro form in ab form"
"what part of the sonata allegro is hardest to hear"
"sonata allegro form popular music" (I get this a lot)
I'd love it if I thought these people were honestly curious to learn about sonata form (if you do, you'll want to see my most infamous post). But they're not. Both of the "difference between..." guys came from Denver, Colorado, which leads me to believe they just got a rather tricky test in their Music Appreciation class, and are now hittin' up the web to let google do their test for them.
Well, let's answer your questions, shall we? Let me just put my sense of Academic Honesty on the shelf for a bit.
First answer: The most significant difference between the Exposition and the Recapitulation is either (a) the extreme difference in the bridge between the First Theme and the Second Theme, or (b) the fact that, in the Recapitulation, all the Themes are in the same key, unlike the Exposition. Your teacher is probably looking for (b) on your test, by the way.
Second answer: What part is the hardest to hear? Umm... the flute in its lower register? The second violins playing in tune? I have no idea what you're looking for with that question!
Third answer: Why would you disgrace Sonata Form by writing pop music to it?
Anyway, my diligent readers (and those of you who only visit for 3 seconds), I see what you're searching for, and I have delivered! Now, if you Denver residents have any more questions, feel free to leave them in comments and I'll help within a few hours.
Chances are, though, your test was due today, so I'll just leave this post up for next semester's students.
There's an element found in most Science Fiction books, films, and games that I find so beautiful. Starships are commanded by a crew rich in ethnic diversity. Human ambassadors are white, black, and everything in between. Differences in race and gender certainly exist, and are certainly acknowledged, but with the same significance that someone's shirt color has. What a beautiful future that is to imagine, where racism and sexism are so far behind us, where we stand united, squabbling only over things which really matter, instead of over the amount of melanin in a person's skin.
There are several things which I am extremely passionate about, but there's one thing in particular which affects me very personally, and which I find very hard to argue without getting quickly invested in it, emotionally: Gay Marriage.
Ahhh, the innocence of youth. I was a fledgling young lad of twenty when Proposition 8 was on the ballot. How simple life was then! On the road of human progress, voting down Prop 8 seemed like just another cobblestone; we just lift our foot, exert almost no effort, and we'll have made beautiful progress towards that beautiful future.
In my naivete, I brought it up with my family and friends. "Hey, Prop 8 is on the ballot. Let's go do the right thing!"
Ahhh, how bittersweet that subsequent loss of innocence was. I learned that year that my family and friends were intolerant, narrow-minded, bigoted fools, who didn't even know why they supported Prop 8. Their rationalizations weren't just stupid; they were totally irrelevant to the issue. So what if gays can't have babies? Lots of straight couples don't have babies, either!
They betray their real view when they say things like: "Children raised by a homosexual couple will be corrupted, and will start thinking it's okay to be gay", "Teachers will start having to tell students that it's okay to be gay", etc. I wonder if they realize they've just admitted their reason for opposing gay marriage: They hate homosexuality.
Anyway, my real reason for this post wasn't to rant about gay marriage again. As I gain more and more experience in arguing, there's one lesson that's so difficult for me to learn:
Sometimes, people will not change their mind, either because they're ignoring you, they're emotionally invested in their opinion, or they're just too dumb to know a rational argument when they see one.
It's another crushing blow to my naive view of the world. I always enter a discussion assuming my partner is capable of reasonable, rational thought. I always assume that, if they hold a stupid view, I can win them over if I just word my argument right. I always assume my partner is looking for the truth, not just looking to convert me.
I just "finished" an argument with my former facebook friend, the founder of the (thankfully) unsuccessful "Ghostbusters wannabe" society. I know, I should've guessed that he wouldn't adhere to logical or rational thought, but I tried anyway. He had posted the results of a poll he'd taken where he said he "didn't support gay marriage".
Our conversation went something like this:
----Why did you vote "no" on this poll?
>>>>Love is love. You don't need marriage for that. I am opposed to all marriage, because it "traps you till death do us part".
----Nice. I agree that love is love, and you don't need to be married to love someone, but marriage is about mutual commitment as much as it is about love. Why don't you just not marry, and let gay people and straight people marry if they want to?
>>>>It's the law that gays can't marry. Laws are important. They keep society running smoothly. I like the law.
----Yes, I agree, laws are important. But why do you think disallowing gays to marry is an important law to have?
>>>>Hahaha! Talking about gay marriage is funny because it's so controversial! Look at all the attention my facebook post is getting!
----I'm still trying to figure out why you oppose gay marriage. We haven't really begun talking about it yet, and you're already saying it's a controversy? Also, you totally evaded my question. Why do you think disallowing gay marriage is an important law to have?
>>>>I'm opposed to gay marriage because I'm opposed to all marriage. Marriage "traps you till death do us part".
----Dear God, you said that already. We're not forcing you to marry. Why not let everyone else marry, and you can just do the live-in girlfriend thing?
>>>>I'm a dense fool, and therefore have no idea what you're suggesting. I'm against all marriage because it "traps you till..."
----Please! I don't want to think of you as a gay-hating bigot, but you're leaving me no choice!
>>>>"...death do us part". It's also the law. Laws are good. Also, if gays want to marry, they can just get a civil union.
----They shouldn't have to! Having Marriages and Civil Unions is like having separate drinking fountains for black people! We did the Separate But Equal thing, but we thankfully outgrew it fifty years ago.
>>>>I'm going to ignore what you said and give you my marriage spiel again. I'm against all marriage, because it "traps you till..."
Pause
Oh my god, I'm going to die when I'm thirty-five if I keep arguing with this guy. I'm getting nowhere, I'm not going to get anywhere, but... but...
... but that beautiful future, where we're all working together, and where racism, sexism, and sexual-preferencism are nonexistent is just too beautiful to give up on!
I know what I need to do, but it's going to be so hard for me to do it; I need to give up on this guy. I need to accept that there's nothing I can do... but...
Unpause
----I'm sorry. It bothers me, it frustrates me, and it makes me very sad... but I know I'm not going to get anywhere with this conversation. I think it's best we go our separate ways. Please don't vote.
After which I posted a status that read: "Every time I argue about Gay Marriage I want to cry." He commented on it, saying: "Haha, I didn't know my post made you feel that way." I deleted his comment. I removed him from my friends list, took out my iPod, started up Music for 18 Musicians, and wrote this entry.
No loss, really; I only added him as a friend because he was in the same orchestra as me. I just hope gullible, superstitious morons are a minority in our species.
I listen to Classical music. Pretty much only Classical music. That's stunningly narrow-minded of me, isn't it? I'm so logical, rational, reasonable, not at all conceited, and intelligent. Shouldn't that mean I'm open to all the genres of music, and not just one?
Technically, I also enjoy the symphonic metal groups, like Nightwish and Symphony X. I've only been to two non-Classical concerts, and they were both to see Nightwish live. Which would bring the number of genres I like up to... two.
I'm not a Music Bigot... am I?
No I'm not. But first, a little clarification of terms before I defend myself:
"Genre" is to "Music" like "Apple" is to "Fruit". Music is broken up into genres, and genres are broken up into music groups. Like this:
If that was, indeed, the way music is organized, then you'd be right to accuse me of being a close-minded music listener. But that's not at all the way music is organized. Music divides into two subcategories: "Academic Music" and "Popular Music". Behold how open-minded I truly am:
You see, "classical" music is literally only music from around 1750-1825 (which includes Haydn, Mozart... some Beethoven). Handel's "Messiah" is technically Baroque, just like anything you've heard by Johann Sebastian Bach. Tchaikovsky, Brahms, late Beethoven? Romantic.
So, next time you want to accuse one of us "Classical music guys" of being narrow-minded in the music we listen to, just ask yourself: "Have I ever heard of Palestrina? of Debussy? of Steve Reich? Has music ever made me cry, or do I just put it on when I'm doing laundry?"
I've given it some thought, and I've decided that it's just their promotional video is misleading, idealistic, and naive. Ignoring their video for a second, The Girl Effect is really a good idea. It postulates that educating women will improve the world. Since people who are better educated are more likely to make more money, make smarter decisions, be atheists, and approve of critical thinking, science, and reason, I think it's fairly obvious that educating people is a very good thing.
The thing that irks me about this whole movement, though, is the undertone that "women have this innate power to save the world" and that men don't. There is nothing presented in The Girl Effect that men can't also do. I'd even be prone to donating to this cause if it was called, like, The Human Effect, or something, and focused on educating everyone, not just girls.
Again, this isn't to say I have anything against girls. A person's reproductive organs have no demonstrable bearing on the talents, abilities, and competence of an individual. And yes, when it comes to education, women get (and always have gotten) the short end of the stick. But can we please just prefer both genders equally, instead of just switching the bias?
Now, on to the video. If you're reading my blog, you will be intelligent enough to cringe at:
1. It's not the internet.
2. It's not science.
3. It's not the government.
4. It's not money.
Pay attention when you watch this video, because the hypothetical girls sells milk to (4) make money, ends up joining (3) the local government and she uses money to bring clean water to her village... which was capable of being purified by (2) science. Also, this whole movement is being popularized through (1) the internet.
Don't bash science and government, or you will feel my wrath, hypocrites.
