Doubt Quiz

I just finished listening to the audio book of "Doubt: A History: The Great Doubters and Their Legacy of Innovation from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson" http://tinyurl.com/3afhqe (yes I have way too much time on my hands)
 At the beginning of the book, she has a little quiz on a person's religious standpoints and their degrees of certainty. I'm really curious (insert incredibly nosy) on where people fall. I realize it can be a very private matter(is privacy still a thing?), so don't share if you don't want to(honestly, who doesn't want to tell other people their most deepest held beliefs). If you do, I would love to see the results, and how many of the people fall where. I also realize certain labels or words mean different things to different people (though obviously my definitions are the correct ones). She talks a bit about definitions in the book, and the context she gives would be helpful, but I really don't expect anyone I know to read the introduction to the book (passive aggressive way of saying I think I'm better than everyone. I mean, I listened to a whole audio book). I am obviously ripping it out of its context, so if you do decide to go take the quiz, please take it with a grain of salt!(ie please still be my friend if you don't like what this says or implies)
The "Scale of Doubt" Quiz:
http://being.publicradio.org/programs/doubt/quiz.shtml
Click on the link for the actual quiz, has a handy button on the bottom where one can 'calculate'

I cut and pasted the quiz for those who don't want to do it, but just want to see it.

1. Do you believe that a particular religious tradition holds accurate knowledge of the ultimate nature of reality and the purpose of human life?
   yesnonot sure
2. Do you believe that some thinking being consciously made the universe?
   yesnonot sure
3. Is there an identifiable force coursing through the universe, holding it together, or uniting all life-forms?
   yesnonot sure
4. Could prayer be in any way effective, that is, do you believe that such a being or force (as posited above) could ever be responsive to your thoughts or words?
   yesnonot sure
5. Do you believe this being or force can think or speak?
   yesnonot sure
6. Do you believe this being has a memory or can make plans?
   yesnonot sure
7. Does this force sometimes take a human form?
   yesnonot sure
8. Do you believe that the thinking part or animating force of a human being continues to exist after the body has died?
   yesnonot sure
9. Do you believe that any part of a human being survives death, elsewhere or here on earth?
   yesnonot sure
10. Do you believe that feelings about things should be admitted as evidence in establishing reality?
    yesnonot sure
11. Do you believe that love and inner feelings of morality suggest that there is a world beyond that of biology, social patterns, and accident — i.e., a realm of higher meaning?
    yesnonot sure
12. Do you believe that the world is not completely knowable by science?
    yesnonot sure
13. If someone were to say "The universe is nothing but an accidental pile of stuff, jostling around with no rhyme nor reason, and all life on earth is but a tiny, utterly inconsequential speck of nothing, in a corner of space, existing in the blink of an eye never to be judged, noticed, or remembered," would you say, "Now that's going a bit far, that's a bit wrongheaded?"
    yesnonot sure

Disclosure time, depending how I answer questions two and three, (no or not sure, I'm still debating on which one I think): "You are an agnostic" or "You may still be an atheist or agnostic, though not of the materialist variety" or "You are a hard-core atheist and of a certain variety: a rational materialist".

Arguing with a creationist

I'm starting to feel like a creationist is equivalent to the black knight. Arthur is the internet.

The Sagan Series

It's a rainy day, so it's a good day to watch The Sagan Series. Who am I kidding, any day is a good day for an injection of some Carl Sagan. I have seen a couple, but never all six all at one time. Well worth the roughly twenty three minutes for all six. Something about listening to Carl Sagan's voice is always inspiring for me. The man was a credit to the human species.

The Sagan Series (Part 1) - Nasa The Frontier Is Everywhere



The Sagan Series (Part 2) - Life Looks For Life



The Sagan Series (Part 3) - A Reassuring Fable



The Sagan Series (Part 4) - Nasa Per Aspera Ad Astra



The Sagan Series (Part 5) - SETI Decide To Listen



The Sagan Series (Part 6) - End Of An Era: The Final Shuttle Launch

Old Man Leudecke and The Nerdist

I tend to get a little proselytizing and excited about things that I really enjoy. I guess I feel, if this gives me enjoyment and happiness, it should for you too! With that in mind, lately the two highest on the list would be Old Man Leudecke and The Nerdist podcast.

Old Man Leudecke is a banjo player from Nova Scotia. I missed the first time Niki saw him, but was able to catch his tour through Edmonton in May. I know when most people hear "banjo music" their ears shut off, but you must try and get past that. The combination of the dulcet tones of the banjo mixed with his truly great songwriting is a combination well worth listening to. How can a person not love a musician who has a song that is all about bacon?! He also played some Roger Miller at his show. He said he had never done this before, and this helped to truly cement my love of this travelling troubadour. I feel like dancing and smiling everytime I hear his music, and hope you do too.

The second thing I have been all evangelical about lately is The Nerdist podcast. It helps that Chris Hardwick and his co-horts are really funny. Combine that with the great guests they have and the fact that they would get my Kids in the Hall references.(They seem to have a good knowledge Canadian comedy) I also like that they don't disparage people. They generally speak well of other people, which is a rare thing in the age of the interwebs and celebrity. I think this combination of good heartedness and humour is what gives me happy nerd brain at the end of each episode. As someone who also knows nothing of the comedy industry, and how comics work, I find the discussions into the industry fascinating. The show is basically them shooting the breeze with a famous comedian/actor.
I know some people would look down on them for all the swears, but honestly, I don't care what the fuck you say, it's how you say it. Language is just a tool for communicating ideas. If your ideas and thoughts come across, and I like them, who gives a cows intestinal tract. As long as you are getting them across in a matter fitting the context. Swearing actually has testable benefits, but that's a discussion for another time. Oh, and I don't want to give the impression that it's one long curse fest, but I know some people shut the brain off at the first sign of a "F" bomb, and wanted to give fair warning. With all that said, go download The Nerdist from your podcast aggregate of choice. Go. Now. DO IT! I'm going to take my own advice and listen to another episode right now. It's always a good time for a laugh and a smile!

Faith and Reason

I have a question that's going to seem contentious and condescending. It's not consciously meant to be that way though. It has been wiggling around in my brain for over a week now.
First a little background. I downloaded two Christian podcasts based off of a sought out recommendation. The first one is called 'Fighting for the Faith', and the second is 'Table Talk Radio'. They are both Lutheran based podcasts. I sought them out mainly to try and find some well thought out and contrary views to my own. Mainly just to keep challenging myself and to not always listen/read viewpoints that align with my own. I've only listened to a couple of episodes, they're not very well thought out, but they are contrary. I also am listening to the oldest ones first, so I'm not gonna give up on them yet. I can't remember which one, but one of them basically said Reason needs to be subservient to Faith. That it can't be trusted if it contradicts what one reads in the Bible. I found this a little odd, wondering what mental gymnastics they accomplished to reach that conclusion without 'reasoning' their way into it. It's like the silliness that says you don't interpret the Bible, you just read it. Now to my question. What's separates being a Lutheran from a cult, or cult-like thinking at least? I'm picking on the Lutherans specifically because of Luther's quotes about reason and it's relation to faith. When I think of a cult, I think of a group that doesn't like questions, or critical examination of it's beliefs. The underlining thought is that if you, or an idea, is contrary to the groups beliefs, the groups beliefs can never be wrong. Therefore it's you and the reasoning that got you there that has to be wrong. In this case the 'group' is the Bible. I don't think it's just the Lutherans that do this. It's probably the type of thinking that leads William Craig to argue the way he does.
Am I way off on this? Can one be a critical thinker and have religious faith? How do the people out there mash the two together for themselves?
I found a site called The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy when doing some searching on this subject. It had a entry on Martin Luther and an entry on Faith and Reason. People might find that interesting reading for more background.
Cheers,
Scott
PS - Full disclosure, my Mennonite heritage makes me predisposed not to like Luther, or his intellectual descendants, though everyone's all ecumenical nowadays. Can one have intellectual descendants when one dislikes Reason?
PPS - I'm still looking for more podcasts to give me different religious perspectives. I just ask they are not scientifically illiterate. Recommendations welcome.

God and Disaster

A.C. Grayling recently wrote a small essay on the RD website, and I thought I would reprint it here. I saw one too many "I'm praying for Japan" tweets and Facebook status'. I understand the desire to want to help. I also realize it can make one feel like they are helping. The idea that praying for Japan means one actually did something tangible to help makes me feel a little melancholy. Especially if it would lead a person to think, "I don't need to donate or help out this disaster, I prayed for them." I think the essay sums up things fairly well.
Cheers,
Scott
PS - If one wants to donate, to help the relief efforts in Japan, CBC has a web page set up of different organizations. http://www.cbc.ca/japanrelief/

"One thinks with sorrow of the hundreds of thousands whose lives have been horrendously lost or affected by the great Japanese earthquake and tsunami, which will put a black mark against this year 2011 in the annals, coming so soon after the earthquake that hit Christchurch in New Zealand. The events are almost certainly linked tectonically, reminding us of the vast forces of nature that are normal for the planet itself but inimical to human life, especially when lived dangerously close to the jigsaw cracks of the earth’s surface.

Someone told me that there were to be special prayers in their local church for the people of Japan. This well-intentioned and fundamentally kindly proceeding nevertheless shows how absurd, in the literal sense of this term, are religious belief and practice. When I saw the television footage of people going to church in Christchurch after the tragic quake there, the following thoughts pressed.

It would be very unkind to think that the churchgoers were going to give thanks that they personally escaped; one would not wish to impute selfishness and personal relief in the midst of a disaster in which many people arbitrarily and suddenly lost their lives through ‘an act of God’. If they were going to pray for their god to look after the souls of those who had died, why would they think he would do so since he had just caused, or allowed, their bodies to be suddenly and violently crushed or drowned?

Indeed, were they praising and supplicating a deity who designed a world that causes such arbitrary and sudden mass killings? An omniscient being would know all the implications of what it does, so it would know it was arranging matters with these awful outcomes. Were they praising the planner of their sufferings for their sufferings, and also begging his help to escape what he had planned?

Perhaps they think that their god was not responsible for the earthquake. If they believe that their god designed a world in which such things happen but left the world alone thereafter and does not intervene when it turns lethal on his creatures, then they implicitly question his moral character. If he is not powerful enough to do something about the world’s periodic murderous indifference to human beings, then in what sense is he a god? Instead he seems to be a big helpless ghost, useless to pray to and unworthy of praise.

For if he is not competent to stop an earthquake or save its victims, he is definitely not competent to create a world. And if he is powerful enough to do both, but created a dangerous world that inflicts violent and agonizing sufferings arbitrarily on sentient creatures, then he is vile. Either way, what are people thinking who believe in such a being, and who go to church to praise and worship it? How, in the face of events which human kindness and concern registers as tragic and in need of help – help which human beings proceed to give to their fellows: no angels appear from the sky to do it – can they believe such an incoherent fiction as the idea of a deity? This is a perennial puzzle."

True Grit

My favourite minor character. Bear Man.

I just saw the new True Grit. I enjoyed the movie, and would recommend anyone to see it. It left me feeling thoughtful. The crunch of the snow, the blowing wind, and my long black cloak seemed very fitting as I left the theatre. I just needed boots, gun and cowboy hat. My cousin, who I saw it with, and  I  parted ways after the show. I had the car ride home to ponder. I didn't listen to the radio or podcasts. There are many little things I enjoyed about the movie. The hymns playing throughout were beautiful, gave one a sense of gravitas, and old time religion. The language of the characters could at the same time seem uneducated and well spoken. It was an language stripped of diplomacy, but direct and functional. There was a lot of quick little bits of humour in the script for those paying attention. There was an honesty and a bluntness to the film I appreciated. It gave you the feeling of a way of living that was hard, matter of fact and not so comfortable. The movie seemed to say, 'that's the way life is, people die, shit happens, you deal with it as you can'. It was not gruesomely violent and what violence there was seemed to make a point rather than be violent for it's own sake. There were many little moments that I enjoyed. When a man didn't stand for a women and she insulted him for it made me smile. The portrayal of abuse, sexism and casual racism was felt subtly, rather than shouted at you. From start to finish I was engrossed. There are other things I could say, but I think I'll leave it at that. I'm not a professional when it comes to reviewing movies, but it was entertaining, thoughtful, and enjoyable. That's all I can ask.
Cheers.
Scott
PS - The fact that John Wayne and his acting had no part in this movie helped. I know he's an American icon and all, but the man could not act.
PPS -  The other recent theatre film I have seen is The King's Speech. Great film, go see it if you feel True Grit would not be your cup of tea.

A Belated Happy New Year.

We're not that far from February, but happy new year all the same. What's the protocol on that? How long do I have to say it before I get shunned? I was just wondering, what sort of resolutions people have made? Mine is to call a friend that I have not talked to for over a month, at least once a week. Facebook sucks for actually staying close with friends, so this is my solution. I trust everyone is well, and look forward to chatting with some good friends.
If anyone's resolution is to buy me stuff, I found that I can order all the discworld novels, signed by the author. The internet is truly a wonderful thing.
My favourite quote from the latest discworld novels is what I'll end this little entry with.
"The Patrician took a sip of his beer. "I have told this to few people, gentlemen, and I suspect I never will again, but one day when I was a young boy on holiday in Uberwald I was walking along the bank of a stream when I saw a mother otter with her cubs. A very endearing sight, I'm sure you will agree, and even as I watched, the mother otter dived into the water and came up with a plump salmon, which she subdued and dragged onto a half-submerged log. As she ate it, while of course it was still alive, the body split and I remember to its day the sweet pinkness of its roes as they spilled out, much to the delight of the baby otters who scrambled over themselves to feed on the delicacy. One of nature's wonders, gentlemen: mother and children dining upon mother and children. And that's when I first learned about evil. It is built in to the very nature of the universe. Every world spins in pain. If there is any kind of supreme being, I told myself, it is up to all of us to become his moral superior."
-- Terry Pratchett, Unseen Academicals
Cheers.