Chuck Klosterman IV Answers

Over at The Kory Story there’s a set of posts posing questions from Chuck Klosterman (personally not familiar with him, but the questions are interesting enough), and so here are my answers:

1. Think about your life. Think about the greatest thing you have ever done, and think about the worst thing you have ever done. Try to remember what motivated you to do the former, and try to remember what motivated you to do the latter… How similar are these two motives?

Worst thing was done out of lust, the best was done out of hope and ambition (more selfless).  I think the two motives are direct opposites.

2. Think of someone who is your friend (do not select your best friend, but make sure the person is someone you would classify as “considerably more then an acquaintance”). This friend is going to be attacked by a grizzly bear. Now this person will survive the attack; that is guaranteed. There is a 100 percent chance that your friend will live. However, the extent of his injuries is unknown; he might receive nothing but a few superficial scratches, but he also might lose a limb (or multiple limbs). He might recover completely in twenty-four hours with nothing but a great story, or he might spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair. Somehow you have the ability to stop this attack from happening. You can magically save your friend from the bear. But his (or her) salvation will come at a peculiar price: if you choose to stop the bear, it will always rain. For the rest of your life, wherever you go, it will be raining. Sometimes it will pour and sometimes it will drizzle-but it will never not be raining. But it won’t rain over the totality of the earth, nor will the hydrological cycle de disrupted; these storm clouds will be isolated, and they will focus entirely on your specific where-abouts. You will also never see the sun again. Do you stop the bear, accepting the lifetime of rain?

Yes.  I have two choices, enjoy the rain or buy an umbrella.

3. Assume everything about your musical tastes was reversed overnight. Everything you loved, you now hate; everything you once hated, you now love. If your favorite band has always been REM, they will suddenly sound awful to you, they will become the band you dislike the most. Everything will become it’s opposite, but everything will remain in balance (and the rest of your personality will remain unchanged). So-in all likelihood-you won’t love music any less (or any more) then you do right now. There will still be artists you love and who make you happy; they will merely be the artists you currently find unlistenable. Now, I concede that this transformation would make you unhappy. But explain why.

I disagree with the need for that concession.  If my tastes completely changed then there would be no reason for me to be unhappy.  The concession doesn’t follow so I have no response than to call bullshit, I’d be completely transformed musically, but I’d be happy.

4. At the age of thirty, you suffer a blow to the skull. The head trauma leave you with a rare form of partial amnesia-though otherwise fine, you’re completely missing five years from your life. You have no memory of anything that happened between the ages of twenty-three and twenty-eight. That period of your life is completely gone; you have no recollection of anything that occurred during that five year gap.
You are told by friends and family that-when you were 25-you (supposedly) became close friends with someone you met on the street. You possess numerous photos of you and this person, and everyone in your life insists that you and this individual were best friends for over two years. You were (allegedly) inseparable. In face, you find several old letters and e-mails from this person that vaguely indicate you may have even shared a brief romantic relationship. But something happened between you and this individual when you were 27, and the friendship abruptly ended (and apparently-you never told anyone what caused this schism, so it remains a mystery to all). The friend moved away soon after the incident, wholly disappearing from your day-to-day life. But you have no memory of any of this. Within the context of your own mind, this person never existed. There is tangible proof that you deeply loved this friend, but-whenever you look at their photograph-all you see is a stranger.
Six weeks after your accident, you are informed this person suddenly died.
How sad do you feel?

Not overly.  I have no recollection for the person, however I would feel at a loss for the five years of my finite life.  I would also feel down about the death of someone so young, although I would not feel any personal loss.

5. You work in an office performing a job that you find satisfying (and which compensates you adequately). The company that employs you is suddenly purchased by an eccentric millionaire who plans to immediately raise each person’s salary by 5% and extend an extra week of vacation to all full-time employees.
However, this new owner intends to enforce a somehwat radical dress code: every day men will have to wear tuxedos, tails and top hats (during the summer months, men wil be allowed to wear three piece grey suits on “casual Fridays”). Women must exclusively work in formal wear, preferably ball gowns or prom dresses. Each employee will be given an annual $500 stipend to purchase necessary garments, but that money can only be spent on work related clothing.
The new regime starts in 3 months.
Do you seek employment elsewhere?

Potentially.  If I enjoyed the work I would continue with the company, however I do appreciate wearing very casual clothes (which is afforded to me by research jobs), so I would only stay if I enjoyed the job.  The “free” tuxedos and suits would be nice though.

6. You have been wrongly accused of a horrific crime: Due to a bizarre collision of unfortunate circumstances and insane coincidences, it appears that you have murdered a prominent U.S. senator, his beautiful young wife, and both of their infant children. Now, you did not do this, but you are indicted and brought to trial.
Predictably, the criminal proceedings are a national sensation (on par with the 1994 O.J. Simpson trial). It’s on television constantly, and it’s the lead story in most newspapers for almost a year. The prosecuting attorney is a charming genius; sadly, your defense team lacks creativity and panache. To make matters worse, the jury is a collection of easily confused sheep. You are found guilty and sentenced to four consecutive life terms with virtually no hope for parole (and - since there were no procedural mistakes during the proceedings - an appeal is hopeless).
This being the case, you are (obviously) disappointed.
However, as you leave the courtroom (and in the days immediately following the verdict), something becomes clear; the “court of public opinion” has overwhelmingly found you innocent. Over 95 percent of the country believes you are not guilty. Noted media personalities have declared this scenario “the ultimate legal tragedy.” So you are going to spend the rest of your life amidst the general population of a maximum-security prison…but you are innocent, and everyone seems to know this.
Does this knowledge make you feel (a) better, (b) no different, or (c) worse?

Better about humanity and the public for seeing through the story (although it may have been sensationalized in such a way that the “true” story was lost entirely, in which case I would not feel any better), but worse about the judicial system and the power of lawyers.

7. You are offered a Brain Pill. If you swallow this pill, you will become 10 percent more intelligent than you currently are; you will be more adept at reading comprehension, logic, and critical thinking. However, to all other people you know (and to all future people you meet), you will seem 20 percent less intelligent. In other words, you will immediately become smarter, but the rest of the world will perceive you as dumber (and there is now way you can ever alter the universality of this perception).
Do you take this pill?

This question is logically invalid.  If there is “no way” to alter the “universality of the perception” then taking an IQ test (even many of them) would not demonstrate to other people that I was 30% smarter than they thought.  Even just everyday interactions (like better abilities to solve problems at work/school/etc.) would have no effect.  The final issue is what about people you don’t interact with - i.e. if I were to take the pill and write an article to a magazine that was 10% better then I could have done before, then shouldn’t people who read it without knowing me see the higher level of intelligence?

Now if I grant that this contradiction is a possibility then there is no point to being 10% smarter if no one is ever going to accept it, and in fact finds my work and accomplishments 30% worse than it is.  I’d rather have my work judged in without such a bias.

8. You begin watching a new television series, and you immediately find yourself strongly relating to one of the supporting characters. You’ve never before experienced a TV character that seems so similar to yourself; this fictional person dresses, behaves and talks exactly like you. And - slowly, over the course of several episodes - the similarity grows spooky; on two separate occasions, the character recounts personal anecdotes that happened in your real life. The actor portraying this character begins mimicking your mannerisms. In at least three different episodes, the character’s dialog quotes things that you have said (verbatim) during casual conversation.
You become convinced that this is neither coincidence nor mental illness: somehow, this character is being actively based on your life. The show’s writers generally depict the “you” character in a positive manner, but - as far as you can tell - you don’t know anyone involved in the show’s production or creation. It’s totally inexplicable.
You have two friends who also watch this show. One of them is certain that your theory is correct and that (somehow) the character is, in fact, based on your life. She tells you to get a lawyer. The second friend concedes that many of the similarities are amazing, but that the whole notion is ridiculous, impossible, and egocentric. He tells you to see a therapist.
How do you respond to this situation? Do you do anything?

I’d likely look up the writing and producing credits, but likely not pursue any legal action as it would more flatter me than offend.  Furthermore, a show with such a topic would offer a unique insight into my own life.

9. If given the choice, would you rather (a) only abide by the rules and moral of society that you personally agree with, or (b) have the power to slightly adjust the rules and morals that currently exist (but these adjustment would then apply to you and everyone else, all the time)?

If you have (b) then you have (a).  However, I do not think rules and morals should be decided by one single person so I would go with (a).

10. You are placed in the unenviable position of having to compete for the right to stay alive.
You will be matched against a person of your own gender in a series of five events- an 800-meter run, a game of Scrabble, a three-round boxing match, a debate over the legalization of late-term abortion ( scored and officiated by reputable collegiate judges) and the math portion of the SAT.
In order to survive, you must win at least three of these events (your opponent will be playing for his or her life as well). However, you (kind of) get to pick your opponent: you can either (a) compete against a person selected at random, or (b) you can compete against someone who is exactly like you. If selected at random, the individual could be of any age or skill level-he/she might be an infant with Down syndrome, but she might also be an Academic All-American linebacker from Notre Dame. If you pick “the average human,” he/she will be precisely your age and will have an identical level of education, and the person will be a perfect cross-section of your particular demographic-he/she will be of average height and of average weight, with a standard IQ and the most normative life experience imaginable.
So whom do you select? Or-perhaps more accurately-do you feel that you are better than an average version of yourself?

If I went for the “average me” I would likely lose the boxing match and 800m run.  I could hold my own on the math SAT, and likely do well on the debate.  Scrabble would be iffy.  I feel that in general however, I would have a better chance against the random person from society at large, since I would still likely be at a disadvantage in the run and boxing match, however my advantage in the other three events would increase.

11. It is 1933. You are in Berlin, Germany. Somehow you find yourself in position to effortlessly steal Adolf Hitler’s wallet. This theft will not affect Hitler’s rise to power, the nature of World War II, or the Holocaust. There are no important papers in the wallet, but the act will cost Hitler forty Reichsmarks and completely ruin his evening. You do not need the money. The odds that you will be caught are less than 2% but if caught you will be executed. Are you ethically obligated to steal Hitler’s wallet?

I am ethically obligated NOT to steal his wallet.  If theft were justified in that case then why shouldn’t it be justified in any case?  I do not feel it would be right to cause a bit of discomfort by playing judge, jury, and thief.

12. How would your views about war, politics and the role of the military change if all future conflicts were fought by armies of robots (that is to say, if all nations agreed to conduct wars exclusively with machines so that human casualties would be virtually non-existent)?

There was an episode of the original Star Trek series where something similar occurred - only they had computers calculate the casualties and then they had each side kill off that many people.

However, with no casualties I would be less averse to war, however my political views would not change and I would still stand firmly on the left.

13. You are in a plane crash in the Andes Mountains, not unlike those people from the movie Alive. As such, you will be forced to consume the human flesh of the people who died on impact; this will be a terrible experience but it is the only way for you to survive. Fortunately, you did not know any of the victims personally.
Would you rather eat a dead baby, or would you rather eat a dead elderly person? Would you gender play a role in your selection process? And how much would it bother you if this meat turned out to be delicious?

I would evaluate who I’d eat on a case-by-case basis.  The elderly likely have more meat than a baby, however they are more likely to have diseases which could be transferable (through cannibalism) and would be something to be wary of.  Gender would have no role in the selection, and if the meat were delicious I would not continue to eat unless necessary, however I would not really feel deeply disturbed, as likely many forms of mammalian meats are tasty.

14. Is there any widespread practice more futile than attempting to predict society’s future relationship with technology?

The record of Ray Kurzweil shows that’s it’s not impossible for one to have a good track record in predicting technological advances.  I think that what is more futile is hoping people will not commit themselves to any ideology to the point where they are willing to kill themselves.

15. While traveling on business, your spouse (whom you love) is involved in a plane crash over the Pacific Ocean. It is assumed that everyone on board has died. For the next seven months, you quietly mourn. But then the unbelievable happens: it turns out your spouse has survived. He/She managed to swim to a desert island, where he/she lived in relative comfort with one other survivor (they miraculously located most of the aircraft’s supplies on the beach, and the island itself was filed with ample food sources). Against all odds, they have just been discovered by a Fijian fishing boat.
The two survivors return home vie helicopter, greeted by the public as media sensations. Immediately upon their arrival, there is an international press conference. And during this press conference, you cannot help but notice how sexy the other survivor is; physically, he/she perfectly embodies the type of person your mate is normally attracted to. Moreover, the intensity of the event has clearly galvanized a relationship between the two crash victims: they spend most of the interview explaining how they could not have survived without the other person’s presence. They explain how they passed the time by telling anecdotes from their respective lives, and both admit to admit to having virtually given up on the possibility of r a tearful good-bye hug. It’s extremely emotional.
After the press conference you are finally reunited with your spouse. He/She embraces you warmly and kisses you deeply.
How long do you wait before asking if he/she was ever unfaithful to you on this island? Do you never ask? And if your mate’s answer is “yes,” would that (under these specific circumstances) be acceptable?

I wouldn’t ask and would leave it to her to tell me if anything had happened.  I would trust that she had committed herself to me and was faithful in that.  If she happened not to be faithful and told me I might eventually forgive, but I cannot judge what I’d honestly do.

16. Let us assume you have the ability to telekinetically change culture while you actively experience it. Your mind can now dictate what you see and hear. For example, if you were listening to Pear Jam’s Yield and you wanted the music to be heavier, it would immediately sound as though Mike McCready’s guitar had been tuned differently in the studio. If you were watching The Office on NBC and decided that Jim should marry Pam (or Karen, or both), you could make it happen–all you would need to do is think about that specific desire. You could stare at an oil painting and unconsciously change the color contrasts. If a PG13 romantic comedy grew dull, you could force it to evolve into an eroticized NC-17 thriller. You could (essentially) write books as you read them, eliminating certain characters and redirecting plot points as the occurred in the text. However, such changes would only apply to your experience; you could kill off Han Solo at the end of Return of the Jedi, but htat would not change the movie for anyone else. All other people would posses the same personal telekinetic powers as you.
Would you want this? And–if this became a reality–would art retain any meaning whatsoever?

I wouldn’t want this ability because half of the enjoyment from media and culture comes from being surprised at twists and turns.  I don’t believe I’d have enough creativity to keep things interesting.

17. You die from natural causes.
Upon death, you are absorbed skyward. You ascend toward a warm, white light. You immediately realize you have entered the afterlife…and (much to your surprise) it is exactly like the cliched conventional, kindergarten version of Christian heaven. You enter through gates made of pearl. The ground is covered by a white, cloud like fog. Angels fly around you and play the hard. You are wearing a comfortable white robe. Everyone there is aimlessly walking around, smiling broadly, perfectly content; this, it seems, is how you will spend eternity.
Upon your arrival, you are greeted by Jesus (and he looks exactly like the stereotypical depiction of Jesus). “Welcome to heaven,” he says. “I think you will like it here, and I look forward to loving you unconditionally for the duration of time. But I also realize heaven isn’t necessarily for everyone, so I always give newcomers a chance to go to the other place, if that’s what they would prefer.”
“Are you referring to hell?” you say in response.
“Oh, no,” says Jesus. “Not hell. Certainly not hell. I would never send you to hell. But you can go to somewhere that isn’t here. It’s a viable post-life option. About 18% of our potential residents go in that direction.”
“What is the other place like?” you ask.
“I can’t tell you,” says Jesus. “But if you do elect to go there, you can never come back here. And you only have 20 minutes to decide.”
“Why only 20?” you ask.
“Because I am Jesus,” says Jesus.
What do you do?

I take the alternative, see my post I hate god.  Really I just don’t want to spend eternity surrounded by blissful happy Christians (no offence), and would enjoy at least one more surprise with the other 18%.

18. The world is ending. It’s ending quickly, and it’s ending dramatically. It will either end at noon on your fortieth birthday, or it will end two days after you die (from natural causes) at the age of seventy-five. Which apocalyptic scenario do you prefer?

My gut said I wanted to live to seventy-five, but it would be kind of interesting to see the end of the world.  I have to choose the longer life however, since I don’t foresee there being an afterlife.

19. You are given the chance to control what your legacy will be. You can’t specifically dictate how you will be recalled by future generations, but you are given the chance to choose between two general idioms of legacies.
The first kind of legacy (”option A”) would be that you lived your days as a good, honest person who worked hard and contributed to society. However, the limitation of this legacy will be that almost no one will know or remember this information (including future members of your own extended family). Most average people will never even know you lived.
The second kind of legacy (”option B”) will be familiar to almost everyone in the world for centuries to come. However, this legacy will be extremely strange and neutral; it will be an obscure fact that has almost nothing to do with your tangible day-to-day life (the best comparison being the legacy of General Tso Tsungtang, an extremely gifted and successful military leader during the seventeenth-century Qing Dynasty who is now exclusively remembered as the namesake for the popular Chinese dish General Tso’s chicken).
Which legacy do you want?

I choose option A.  I would rather just have a good life where I do what I can to make the world a better place.  If I’m accurately remembered (or not) for that, then so be it, but I would rather that then be remembered for some oddity.

My personal philosophy spelled out

Greta Christina has a(nother) great post on her Blog.  This one examines the “harm reduction” model of public health which essentially accepts human flaws, and works to do as much as possible to fix the situation, but accepts limitations.  For example: STD/contraception instruction to teenagers, anti-needle sharing programs for addicts, etc.  She extends this idea to her life in general, suggesting that we should generally try to make things better, but admits that we can’t always make things perfect. And she concludes:

It lets you be both an optimist and a realist.

It’s a great article, go read it.

If she sound’s high it’s because she’s horny

Apparently (I can’t make this up) women’s voices raise during ovulation, signalling their most fertile times.

Martie Haselton and Greg Bryant at the University of California, Los Angeles, say that vocal pitch plays an important role in judging fertility. “We have found that voices are higher in pitch on high-fertility days of the cycle,” says Haselton.

Lying to cover his tracks

If you haven’t heard, 500 ducks landed and subsequently died in an oil sands tailing pond in Alberta.  Premier Ed Stelmach has now rebutted:

Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach downplayed the deaths, saying that wind turbines kill 30,000 birds annually.

Quickly you have to think: “Where the hell did he get those numbers from?”  And if you did you should know:

That number seems a little overblown, says the president of Calgary-based Alberta Wind Energy Corporation, which focuses on building wind turbines in southern Alberta.

“Studies have indicated that (each of the province’s) turbines kill 1.3 birds annually. I don’t think there are 30,000 wind turbines in the world,” said Stewart Duncan.

In fact wind turbines are one of the least effective means of killing ducks and birds.  That is, after power lines, cars and trucks, tall buildings, homes, lighted commercial towers, pesticides, and house cats.  That’s right CATS kill more birds than turbines Ed!  This really seems like Ed hating the environment even more.  His government has told other lies recently too.

The issue here is not that 500 birds died, its that 500 birds were allowed to die.  The birds emphasize the rampant over-raping of the environment that’s going on in this province and needs to stop.

Superstition runs rampant

Taking a quick break from my studies I saw on CTS, while flipping channels, a news segment on the Archdiocese of Ottawa appointing two new exorcists!  Apparently Ottawa had been without exorcists for the past five years, so I’m not sure how people survived (apparently they get a couple calls per year).  Apparently exorcisms are back “in”:

In the past two decades, Italy alone has increased the ranks of its exorcists from 20 to 350. Just before Christmas, Rome’s chief exorcist, Gabriel Amorth, indicated the Pope wanted an exorcist in every diocese in the world.

Something to note is that despite media “glorification” of exorcisms, often times exorcisms are performed on misdiagnosed victims of mental illness, and even worse the exorcism can lead to death:

Exorcisms in film and fiction can be entertaining, while exorcisms in real life can be fatal. The tragic irony is that in many cases the evil is committed not by the Devil, but by those who believe in him.

Shooting fish in a barrel

Alright, so I feel like writing a post and I needed some brain fodder to get me going. Naturally I look up a mental opposite who is well known, and perhaps respected (among his peers, not mine) and decide to find a writing of Dinesh D’Souza’s.

The latest post on his blog is about Obama and race, not too intriguing for me, but his second latest reeks of failed ignorant arguments. The article is entitled “The Power of Pascal’s Wager.” Here we go (note, this “argument” for belief comes up a lot, so pay attention if you haven’t come across it before).

He launches with an interesting side note about the history of the wager,

Pascal did not invent the wager. It was offered by the Muslim theologian Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali in his medieval work The Alchemy of Happiness. Pascal was familiar with Ghazzali and probably derived the argument from him. But Pascal gave the wager its current classic expression, and in doing so he places an unavoidable choice before all believers and unbelievers.

This isn’t critical to the argument, but it does make D’Souza sound a bit more reputable and like he checks sources and knows what he’s talking about. He continues to dig into the meat of the argument itself, and expresses it fairly eloquently,

Pascal argues that in making our decision about God, we will never understand everything in advance. No amount of rational investigation can produce definitive answers, since what comes after death remains unknown. Therefore we have to examine the options, and we have to make our wager. But what are the alternatives, and how should we weigh the odds? Pascal argues that we have two basic choices, and either way we must consider the risk of being wrong.

Basically, the argument set up is that we all have a choice (belief in God), and we must make it before we die.

If we have faith in God and it turns out that God does not exist, we face a small downside risk: metaphysical error. But if we reject God during our lives, and it turns out God does exist, there is much more serious risk: eternal separation from God. Based on these two possible outcomes, Pascal declares that it is much less risky to have faith in God. In the face of an uncertain outcome, no rational person would refuse to give up something that is finite if there is the possibility of gaining an infinite prize. In fact, under these conditions it is unreasonable not to believe.

It’s pretty simple overall, and it’s a convincing argument for many, so where does it go wrong?

First, D’Souza (and Pascal) is assuming that when he “believes” in God that he has chosen the correct one. D’Souza is openly a Catholic, so I assume his faith is in the god of the New Testament (jesus and the trinity). It would be rather unfortunate for him if the Muslims were right, especially since Allah in some forms is very intolerant to the wrong belief. Following the spirit of the wager, should we not weight all religions (even dead ones) and decide which offers the best reward over punishment for belief for our decision? To me the constant threats from Islam are slightly more terrifying then the threat of being “eternally separated” from God. Pascal’s wager here sets up a one-or-the-other option that doesn’t accurately represent the myriad of possible beliefs (and remember, according to Christians^TM there is only ONE path to God).

Second, this wager is dealing with infinities, a mathematical construct, that people cannot possible comprehend.  Therefore, how is it that we’re expected to perform rational judgement on the decision?

Many people argue that Pascal’s wager assumes equal probabilities of being right and wrong, however in D’Souza’s form this is not an issue as the infinite gain/loss should negate that issue.  This still comes back to my last point about the problem of infinity.  Suppose the probability of God (the Christian one) is infinitely small, should you still believe?  Which infinity is larger, the probability of His existence or the reward for belief (trick question, they’re technically equal).

Another key issue with the argument is it assumes that belief is essentially a switch in your brain that you can switch on and start believing.  Or, it assumes that if you don’t believe you can get away by feigning it in front of the Almighty.  This underlying assumption insults D’Souza’s God by suggesting that faked belief is as worthy as ultimate devotion.

However, my main issue with his argument is that I believe you fundamentally lose something by believing that you potentially have by not believing.  If you focus your entire life on the expectation of an afterlife, you have fundamentally devalued the time that you have to be alive.  Suppose this argument is used in a strict Islamic context (the Islam references might be coming since I have the book Infidel in front of me), then you are required (if male) to at minimum pray multiple times a day in the appropriate direction (and much worse if you are female).  All of this time is essentially wasted if you hedged your bet wrong (I’ll grant some benefit to taking some meditation time, but that’s not equivalent to prayer).

I have one life to live, and based on the evidence available, I’m going to spend it enjoying it as long as it lasts (since after it ends there’s no more Ian).

Pascal’s wager devalues life.

But what was the aim for Pascal’s wager?  It seems that the best it does is give a weak reason for agnostics to move to belief, and for believers to feel good about, but not to convert atheists.

But D’Souza doesn’t stop writing once he’s finished about the argument.  He states,

With their trademark venom, atheists typically condemn, although they cannot refute, Pascal’s wager. Christopher Hitchens can do no better than to launch an ad hominem attack on Pascal as a “hypocrite” and a “fraud.” Attempting condescension, Richard Dawkins proclaims Pascal’s argument “distinctly odd.” And why? Because “believing is not something you can decide to do as a matter of policy. At least, it is not something I can decide to do as an act of will.” Dawkins is right about this, of course, but the real issue is whether he wants to believe and whether he is open to the call of faith.

This statement is a bold faced lie.  Almost every “new atheist” book comes complete with at least as good of a refutation of the argument as I have provided here.  Even Wikipedia contains a thorough refutation.  Are you telling me that D’Souza didn’t even bother looking at a Wikipedia site before writing his post?

D’Souza started with a common argument that I have heard from enough Christians that I came to expect it, however when his article devolved into bold-faced lies I lost another ounce of respect for the man.  I hope by this point we all understand the title for this post.

Obeying Atheist high command

A new order has come down from Atheist General P.Z. Myers: link to Expelled Exposed to boost their ranks in anticipation of the movie being released on Friday.

This is mindless atheist drone THz signing off.

Quick answers

I don’t feel like doing work right now and want to post something.  So I’ll use Hemant’s post from almost a year ago to inspire me.  These are my short and sweet answers, push me further and I’ll expand on any of them (note, I cheated and gave some “yes/no” answers).

How would you respond to the following questions?

• Why do you not believe in God?

No evidence.

• Where do your morals come from?

My upbringing and society.

• What is the meaning of life?

42 (now it’s cliché) - so for enjoyment.

• Is atheism a religion?

Only if coherentism is (i.e. no).

• If you don’t pray, what do you do during troubling times?

Fix it.

• Should atheists be trying to convince others to stop believing in God?

Yes, to a point.

• Weren’t some of the worst atrocities in the 20th century committed by atheists?

But not in the name of atheism.

• How could billions of people be wrong when it comes to belief in God?

Easy.

• Why does the universe exist?

Why not?

• How did life originate?

Slowly.

• Is all religion harmful?

No, more of a disability.

• What’s so bad about religious moderates?

They allow for extremists.

• Is there anything redeeming about religion?

Getting to drink wine on a Sunday morning.

• What if you’re wrong about God (and He does exist)?

Whoops.

• Shouldn’t all religious beliefs be respected?

We don’t tolerate racism.

• Are atheists smarter than theists?

No.

• How do you deal with the historical Jesus if you don’t believe in his divinity?

What historical Jesus?

• Would the world be better off without any religion?

Probably not, but one can imagine.

• What happens when we die?

Nothing special.

Calgary gives middle finger to Earth Hour

Saturday evening was Earth Hour (I’ll admit now that I knew it was coming but didn’t realize until Sunday when it was), and saw many people across Earth turning off their lights from 8-9pm local time.  Many Canadian cities saw drops of up to 9% consumption, and some smaller towns went completely dark!

However, in the heart of fossil-fuel burning Alberta, Calgary saw an increase in power consumption:

Calgary is the only known city in Canada where energy consumption actually went up during Earth Hour, a trend organizers pinned on colder weather and a late start locally in promoting the global event.

The “late start” I think refers to people not being organized in Calgary, unless people only started turning off around 8:30 or 8:45 and had only a little time.  One other reason given is that there was a Flames vs. Oilers game (Oilers won 2-1) that evening as well.

This is the province in which I live, it’s pretty sad.

In the REAL Journal

My story has been boosted to the print version of the Edmonton Journal, check out page B6 for the scoop.

Godless and proud

A new U of A club is challenging religious groups on campus by preaching the word of atheism

Gilbert A. Bouchard, edmontonjournal.com

Published: Monday, March 24

Engineering student and avowed freethinker Ian Bushfield is still amazed at how quickly his brand-spanking-new University of Alberta Atheists and Agnostic club took off, and how much of an impact the neophyte group is having on the campus’ established religious community.

Officially founded last summer when Bushfield and some of his god-optional friends grew frustrated with the “overbearing” religious groups on campus, the Atheists and Agnostic group took off like wildfire as soon as it was officially unveiled at the September 2007 Club Fair held at the U of A Butterdome.

“We collected over 300 signatures (from students interested in membership and/or looking for more information about the club), which was one of the highest number of the clubs that participated,” says Bushfield, the founding club president.

“We now have probably about 130 members, and have 10 to 12 people show up to our regular meetings.” Not bad, given that Bushfield, 22, says he wouldn’t likely have formed the club at all if there had been “no other religious clubs on campus.”

By comparison, at a recent event hosted by the U of A Chaplains, Lutheran Chaplain Richard Reimer remarked that he was “really bummed” during the club fair when he dropped by the atheists’ booth and discovered that they had already collected 75 names when the Lutherans had managed to collect four.

“Basically, this club is a way to unite non-religious people together and give them a voice and a social group that can be used to do a bit of activism,” Bushfield says.

So far, club-sponsored activities have included screening a documentary about renowned atheist/scientist/author Richard Dawkins (60 people attended), joining in (in a good-natured, oppositional fashion) public discussions about religion, and waving the secular flag during the recent provincial election campaign.

This commitment to reason-based and secular society is a big point for Bushfield and his fellow club members.

“I remember being in elementary school when the Gideons came and gave out Bibles, and thinking to myself that this was stupid, and I didn’t want one,” Bushfield says.

Unlike earlier generations of atheists who had to work hard to shuck a religious upbringing and the constraints of a universally religious society, Bushfield was raised in a diehard irreligious household, and has been inside a church only five times in his life.

Bushfield and his U of A band of non-believers are hardly unique. In fact, it could seem like the group is riding a wave of popular atheism. For example, not only is Christopher Hitchens’ God is Not Great still ranked number 47 on the Amazon.ca bestsellers list months after its release (at the time of writing), some 20 new atheist groups have been founded on different Canadian campuses over the past year.

“You’re seeing the same thing all across the U.S. as well,” he says. “This is the first generation raised in a secular society that doesn’t feel awkward if it doesn’t go to church.”