Resurrecting An Idea…

Last Christmas, I did a week-long series of posts exploring the topic of religion in general and my atheism specifically.

One of my posts was about how, even though believers will give dozens of reasons why they are religious, from my perspective there were three main reasons I thought people actually were religious – whether the believer acknowledges them or not.

They were:
Conformity – the biggest reason people is religious is that we end up following the religion of the people around us, most likely our parents or occasionally our spouses
Comfort – religion has become the most prevalent method that humanity has come up with for helping us deal with the big questions – life, death, morals, etc.
Community – following a religion is one of the quickest ways to find a like-minded “tribe” who share a common purpose and outlook.

I received some positive feedback and some negative feedback on the posts I did.  I don’t spend a lot of time looking at my blog stats most of the time but will admit that I watched them a bit more closely after those posts, perhaps irrationally thinking that I would piss off everybody who reads this blog and there would be a mass exodus (er, great word, eh?) and I’d end up back to where I was in the month after I started this blog back in 2006 – writing for a handful of people at most.

That worry was unfounded (I need to give my readers – religious and otherwise – a lot more credit.  Or I need to be less paranoid!) and my hits stayed pretty level.  So I didn’t think much more of those posts until a month or two later when I got an e-mail from a long time reader who told me she was going to take a break from my blog.

It had been a throw-away atheist-related crack in a completely non-atheist themed post that had triggered her e-mail but obviously a lot of the decision came from that series of posts back in December.  She felt frustrated with my lack of openness to alternate viewpoints (ironically, what I often accuse believers of.)

On that point, all I can say is guilty as charged as I will explain below.   We exchanged a couple of respectful e-mails but I decided that probably wasn’t a very useful exercise as neither of us were likely going to change our positions.  I thanked her for sharing her concerns and told her that I know when I gain readers and can often easily figure out why – because I get linked to from a high-traffic site or one of my posts get shared on a social networking site or whatever.  But I rarely know what causes people stop reading my blog.

So since the idea that led to this feedback was “born” at Christmas, I thought it only fitting that I “resurrect” the subject at Easter.

Now on that charge of not being open to alternate viewpoints, I’ve been struggling to find a good analogy to explain why I’m not more open to the possibility that there could still be a god (or whatever) and why I made the move from calling myself agnostic to atheist.

For me, I think that sometimes there are just topics where, after careful consideration and weighing different viewpoints, you decide something is right or correct and that’s all there is to it with only the most miniscule chance that you would change your mind (although I strongly believe that you should always allow for that possibility.  Otherwise, you’re just being dogmatic.  For example, many atheists use the example that if there was a documented, proven miracle on the scale of the spontaneous re-generation of an amputated limb, they would reconsider.)

It’s not a perfect analogy for why I’m not more open to the possibility of a higher power or more sympathetic to religious viewpoints but I think that there are similarities to the ongoing progression of humanity with regards to various other beliefs that used to be taken as gospel truth (pun intended) – that blacks were inferior, that women were property, that homosexuals were evil.

Obviously, not all religious belief has those negative connotations that those things did and do.  But then again, a century or two ago, slavery and homophobia didn’t seem so bad either.  I wouldn’t be surprised if, in one hundred years, many of the current practices of religion – from the seemingly harmless (or even beneficial) like international missions to the obscene such as various churches’ opposition to abortion, birth control, etc. – are looked at in the same way we now look at slavery, racism, sexism, etc.  These things still exist of course but every generation seems to improve slightly.

Of course putting it that way, it makes it sound like I’m saying I’m some more highly evolved being, just waiting for the rest of the world to catch up with my brilliant insights into how it *really* is.

That’s not true – well, at least I hope it isn’t but a blog post on arrogance, ego and self-awareness would be a fun one to tackle some day.

But I do think that it’s really hard for the believer to overcome all of the benefits – real and perceived – of being a believer to make the leap to atheism.  As I documented at Christmas, I had a big head start – non-religious parents, a really good friend who embodied the phrase “playing the devil’s advocate” when he was all of eight years old, a love of books and reading including science fiction and/or any book you “weren’t supposed to read” – all of which are great for making you a critical thinker.

Again, I feel like I’ve put my foot in it.  So to clarify, I am not trying to say that believers aren’t critical thinkers.  I know many religious people who are doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, university professors, nurses, librarians, even priests and ministers – all people who have tons of education and highly developed critical thinking skills (much beyond my abilities in that area in all honesty).  But I do think that believers also have a gi-normous blind spot when it comes to the question of faith.  (It may not even be their choice.  Recent research indicates that ironically, it was evolution which has given humans a propensity to believe in a higher power as a survival mechanism!)

So anyhow, that’s all a long, rambling way to say that because of some of the feedback I received and some further thought I’ve given to my initial list, I’ve decided to add a couple more C’s to my list of “The Real Reasons People Are Religious”:

Comprehension – humans have evolved to work with human-sized scale.  We think in terms of about one hundred years or so, distances of miles, heights of six to ten feet and so on.  Modern developments have expanded our reach and we can comprehend, say, the distance from Regina to Vancouver better than our grandparents could.  But there is so much in our cosmos that is simply beyond most people’s comprehension – the scale of geologic time, the span of galaxies that I think many people, in the face of such overwhelmingness, almost default to a position of “wow, there can’t be any other explanation except god (or whatever you want to call that higher power.)”

Convenience – some of these categories cover some of the same territory and just as I said in my initial post that Comfort & Community overlapped somewhat, I think Convenience covers some of the same ground as Community.  Being a member of a religion is convenient – it gives you a ready-made community, it gives you a sets of morals (or at least some guidance in that area), it gives you assistance with tough times like illness, death, divorce, etc.  But the convenience goes beyond those things.  Perhaps the most basic is that it can give the believer an easy “out” for all manner of areas and questions.  Religion is convenient because it can provide the ultimate justification for everything from a basic refusal to acknowledge evidence to more serious matters as justifying racism, sexism, murder and other types of mis-treatment.

One final caveat and then I’ll stop.  As I said in one of my replies to a comment in one of my original Christmas posts, my intention with these posts on religion and atheism isn’t to offend anyone but to put out some of my own thoughts and theories.  Yes, I hope that someone who’s religious might read what I’ve written and be swayed but there are others who make these arguments much better than I.  Ultimately, these posts are written as much for myself as for anyone who may read them.

So thanks for indulging me!   I will also resist the urge to make a joke about how we decided to have lamb for our Easter supper as it seemed appropriate.  Crap – too late! 😉

 

Saturday Snap – The World’s Most Boring Privacy Violation

It’s just come out that the iPhone creates a secret file on user’s computers without their knowledge or permission which has a record of their geo-location information.  Unsurprisingly, this has privacy advocates up in arms.

Jessamyn West wrote about this and linked to a small app you can download which can help you visualize what this secret file reveals about you.

I tried this with my own iPhone and realised…I’m pretty boring.  Not sure why our Vancouver trip from last year didn’t show up (Cuba didn’t show up for obvious reasons) but maybe it only keeps data for a set period of time?  But anyhow, this was the total extent of how my privacy has been violated:

Friday Fun Link – Tout

Tout is a new social media site that combines elements of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to allow you to do 15-second video status updates.

“Some moments in life just can’t be reflected in text.  Tout delivers “life as it happens” in full-motion color and sound, as opposed to ‘life as it’s written in 140 characters or less,’” explains Tout founder and CEO Michael Downing.  ”Not everybody has witty and well-crafted writing skills to express themselves in blogs or Tweets, but we all have unique visual perspective and, these perspectives will be the basis of a new form of conversation and storytelling moving forward.”

Who knows if it’ll take off (when I first heard about Twitter, I thought it was the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen too!) but I’m not going to miss the ball on this one.

So far, it’s interesting just to log in and stream their Latest Uploads section (which they call The Highway) to see glimpses of people and events all over the world (though since I’m doing this post on a Friday night, it seems everybody is out partying right now…except me!  In fact, I would’ve added my own Tout to supplement this post – and also to counter the non-stop clips of people at bars and concerts on The Highway right now with a clip of a dad who’s just put his crying son back to bed.  But I see that the site is configured so that you can’t upload directly from a laptop webcam right now – only from an iPhone or existing YouTube clip, presumably so that the clips are a bit more lively instead just a bunch of videos from people sitting on their couches…which is exactly where I am right now!)

And Now You Know…

One of the bad things about not being religious is I don’t have a full and complete understanding of much of what happens within the world of religion and why (What?  Most religious folk don’t either?  Oh…)

Anyhow, luckily I have my own god in the form of Google which provides answers to all of life’s great mysteries.

Five Questions I’m Wondering About During This Election

1.  Will young people vote in greater numbers than in past elections due to social media influence (or just more attention being paid to them generally?)  (Also, are polls under-representing young voters due to the prevalence of cell phones for this demographic and could that result in any election surprises?  Or have pollsters learned to control for this?)

2.  Can Jack Layton convert his personal popularity into real, tangible gains or will people once again go to the Liberals when the chips are down?  (By the way, I love the new NDP Google maps mash-up site where people from across Canada can leave brief messages about why they’re voting NDP.  The site is particularly effective when it comes from people who previously voted for other parties but I also wish there was a way to look through the submissions manually instead of it rotating randomly.)

3. Can Saskatchewan turn a couple seats orange?  (Please, please, please, oh please!)

 

4.  Why do people vote Conservative and is there a way to change their minds?  I mean, most of the sites I linked to yesterday are good at preaching to the converted but I don’t know if I’ve yet seen a site that might convince my relatives in rural Saskatchewan or my cousin in BC to consider voting for anything but the Conservatives.

5. What do all the parties have in store in terms of advertising campaigns, social media strategies, bombshell announcements as we head into the home stretch?  (U of R had its own vote mob today and that got me thinking, wouldn’t it have been cool if the NDP organized a country-wide free concert series for the last week or so of the campaign to further try to pull the youth vote, similar to the various free concerts that featured some pretty big names during the Obama campaign.)

Too Many Tabs Tuesday: Special Viral Election Round-Up

There’s been lots of social media activity this election as expected.

Two of my main aggregators of news & viral content are Twitter’s #exln41 hash tag and Reddit’s Canada sub-Reddit.

Here are a few things that have caught my eye recently:

Music Monday – “Pretend to care/Now feel my hair/Play with kids/Turns into fight/Snowball Fight/Pussy out”

An election-themed parody of “Like A Boss” by The Lonely Island…

First World Problems

I recently came across a sub-Reddit called “First World Problems” where Redditors can submit short, pithy examples of the “struggles” they face in their day-to-day lives.  The collected submissions are a weird mix of funny (on the surface) and sad (once you realise how many of these things you can relate to!)

Here are just a couple examples that hit home for me:

  • I smelled a cigarette for 10 seconds while I was walking down the street today, and it was irritating.
  • The gas station I was at didn’t have that thing on the handle so I had to hold it the whole time.
  • I had too much food for lunch and now I’m tired.
  • The pizza box is too large and awkwardly shaped for my garbage can.
  • My book ran out of batteries.

Saturday Snap – “It’s this limitless space; it can be as big as it needs to be. It can actually contain the sum of everything that we know.”

The quote that gives this post its title comes from Sue Gardner who is Wikipedia’s Executive Director and who Fast Company magazine recently called “The Librarian to the World“.

Most of the time, I have a very positive view of Wikipedia – in fact, I’d go so far as to say it’s one of the single most amazing achievements of the Internet age.  I’m also on record as saying there are only two sites I couldn’t live without – not Google, not Facebook, not Twitter.  The two I couldn’t live without are YouTube (which is a “3D” version of Google in some ways) and Wikipedia (which is the essence of Google – ever notice that 95% of your searches have a Wikipedia link in the top three results?)

I donated to them during their last fundraising drive in the fall then after Christmas decided to become a monthly donor.

But there are also times when I have a very negative view of Wikipedia and even question my decision to support the site financially.

It’s not when I find incorrect information.  Or when I think that some articles on fictional planets from the Star Wars universe are exponentially more detailed than the entries for real countries.  It’s when I see examples of the inclusionist/deletionist battle that constantly rages among the Wikipedian world.

This is a battle between those who feel that Wikipedia, having essentially an unlimited amount of space and a community that is constantly improving and building articles, should allow articles on pretty much anything that can be submitted.  The deletionists take a much more traditional approach.  They see Wikipedia as an extension of a traditional encyclopedia which still needs rules and standards (especially the concept of “notability” to determine whether articles stand or are deleted.)

The times when I see that most clearly are when I try to create new entries.  I did one way back in library school when I created a page for the Spirit of Librarianship award which was deleted within, oh, about  twenty minutes since it was an “internal award at a local university” (translation: non-notable.)  I didn’t agree with the decision but I (sorta kinda) understood why it was made.

The next time was a couple years ago when I created a page for musician, Sam Baker.  Baker is an internationally regarded folk singer whose work has been named “Best of the Year”, “One of the Best 20 Albums of the Year” and the like by a range of press outlets.  To be fair, I didn’t put a lot of work into the entry I created for Baker thinking that it would grow and build over time (as another page I did create, almost as a joke, did.)  Nope, the entry on Baker, who seems to be quite notable by any definition…except Wikipedia’s…was deleted though the link was turned into a re-direct to the page of a band that I think he may have played with at some point in the past (and even that is now gone completely as far as I can tell.)

My most recent experience with the deletionists came just last night when I decided to create a page for NDP’s Palliser candidate, Noah Evanchuk.  (See it quick before it’s gone!)

I should also mention that it’s only my poor typing skills – I searched for “Noah evanchuk” – which made me miss that someone had recently created a page for “Noah Evanchuk” which had already been deleted.

But anyhow, my rationale for creating this page (besides my being an NDP supporter and Noah being a friend – the former also a no-no in the world of Wikipedia) was that there are four people running in Palliser – two who have Wikipedia pages and two who don’t.  The two who do are the sitting MP (understandable) and the Green Party candidate (less understandable.)

But apparently the fact that the Green Party candidate in this Federal election is also the leader of the Provincial Green party means she’s “notable” but the fact that Noah hasn’t “done anything” means he’s not.  (To my mind, she gets rewarded for being a big fish in a small pond while Noah is punished for being a smaller fish in a much bigger pond.)

In looking at the discussion page for the original article on Noah that was deleted, some Wikipedian had made a rather dismissive comment “Yet another unelected Canadian MP candidate in the current election (will this ever stop?), still with no properly sourced indication of notability per WP:POLITICIAN.”  (Translation for those who don’t speak Wiki: “We have rules and you must *prove* someone is notable, even if they’re a politician running for federal office as that, in and of itself, doesn’t make you notable, even though your name will be all over the press and the Internet but this is Wikipedia and we have rules, dammit!”)

That finding intrigued me so I looked up the other Regina-based NDP candidates.  Fred Clipsham, a long-time Regina City Councillor also had a page created then deleted.  The reason?  Being a local city councillor in a “small” city (“only 1/4 the size of Hamilton” one Wikipedian helpfully points out) isn’t notable either!

Dr. Marc Spooner, noted educator and activist, is running against former Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Ralph Goodale (who does have a Wikipedia page) in Regina-Wascana appears not to have a page and I would consider creating one but the deletionists create such a chill that you end up thinking “why bother? It’ll just be deleted anyhow.”

Perhaps the most notable (at least by Wikipedia standards) of the Regina-based NDP candidates is Brian Sklar who has a long career as a successful musician releasing numerous albums, touring internationally, hosting TV shows, appearing at the Grand Ole Opry, winning various awards and even having a Grammy nomination.

Surprisingly, Sklar doesn’t have a Wikipedia page.  As I said, I’m sure he would meet Wikipedia’s “notability” guidelines (well, mostly sure.  Well, maybe sure.  Well, you never know actually, given the experience I had creating the Sam Baker page come to think of it.)

But it doesn’t seem right that Sklar’s page, if Wikipedia editors were to deem it notable, would be for his other accomplishments yet a section could be added about his current political aspirations while others, who are aiming for the exact same office but aren’t as “notable” can’t even have a Wikipedia page.

I guess there are ways to get around this restriction – many links for Liberal candidates within Wikipedia re-direct to this single clearing house page within Wikipedia.  (But not all – ironically, given the subject of this post, the Palliser Liberal candidate is one who isn’t linked to that main listing of Federal Liberal candidates.)

So maybe the NDP or a faithful volunteer (NOT IT!) could set-up something similar?  It’s been done for all the most recent elections, going back to 1988.  (Wikipedia is also not supposed to be “a collection of lists” but apparently their rules only apply sometimes.  And by having a list of candidates, that would allow for mini-bios at the least to be included.)

Why is this important? General internet users have increasingly turned to the Internet and especially Wikipedia as an authoritative source of info so in a way, simply being listed on the site helps justify your candidacy.

The obvious solution would be for Wikipedia to loosen up a bit – but I seriously doubt that’s going to happen anytime soon.  The deletionists don’t realise this but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia but only in the same way that Facebook is a yearbook or Google is a card catalogue.  Instead the deletionists simply out wait and out nitpick everyone, especially newbies – even though Wikipedia is shedding new editors because of the cabal of administrators and deletionists who control the site.  (A recent thread on the topic at MetaFilter is well-worth a read.)

Why else is it important that so-called “not notable” people/places/things have a Wikipedia presence?  As I said, Wikipedia is the essence of Google and often, the one single place that becomes a clearing house for information.  For example, Ryan Meili accomplished all kinds of amazing things during his run for the leadership of the Saskatchewan NDP.  But now that he’s left politics, his web page is down, information about his run is scattered across the Internet and the Wikipedia page that I created for him and which, luckily, wasn’t deleted (why a candidate for the leadership of a provincial party is notable and a candidate for a federal party isn’t is anyone’s guess – yes, Ryan was going for a leadership position but both were “just” candidates and in all honesty, Noah has a much better shot of winning than Ryan ever did!) is that single clearing house (which is the top Google result when you search for Ryan’s name) will provide information about Ryan and his candidacy to anyone who may want it in the future – students, scholars or even other politicians.

Sue Gardner was called “The Librarian to the World” by Fast Company magazine.  But, until Wikipedia learns what it means to be a true repository for all of the world’s knowledge as the site claims to be (and which libraries have been for hundreds and thousands of years), that title is, frankly, a crock of shit.

Friday Fun Link – MIT Scientist Captures 90 000 Hours of His Son’s Life on Tape, Analyzes for Start of Language

This clip is pretty cool for all manner of reasons – amazing technology, cutting-edge video editing – combine when an MIT scientist captures the first 90 000 hours of his son’s life on tape to try to understand how language develops.