Monthly Archives: April 2008

This Post on Religious Philosophy is Too Long

So, anyone that knows me knows that I love to talk about religion and philosophy. I’ve debated whether or not I should indulge those interests on this blog, but a New York Mag article by Sean McManus gave me the perfect excuse to bring it up.

The article is on atheists who are banding together to form churches. Apparently there’s a very old atheistic church here in New York called “The Society for Ethical Culture.” That’s not the part I had a problem with. In fact, I wonder if it’s the real-world inspiration for the temple Roark builds in The Fountainhead.

Anyway, here’s what got me going:

“…at one of their Sunday-morning meetings in January, their Senior Leader, in a very un-churchlike fashion, cited agnosticism as the only intellectually defensible religious position.”

“The only intellectually defensible position”? I’m calling BS on that. I’ll now attempt to explain, in less than 50 words, why that idea is absurd:

To say it’s “the only defensible position,” you have to be able to prove that no person has ever had or will ever have any intellectual or empirical evidence of a divine being. To be able to say that, you must be able to prove either: 1) There is no god; 2) Whatever god there is is incapable of giving us evidence of its existence; or at least never has and never will.

If you could prove any of that, you wouldn’t be giving a speech about “intellectually defensible positions.” You’d just give your proof.

95 words. Sorry. Here’s the REAL, 350-word argument, capped off with the REAL conclusion (that it’s a logical impossibility for agnosticism to be the only defensible position):

Assuming that “agnosticism” in this context means that the existence of a god is either unknown or unknowable, the argument boils down to this:

1). If this speaker’s idea of agnosticism is that the existence of a god is unknown, and he’s saying that’s the only intellectually defensible position, that means that either there is no god or that a god has never proven his/her/its existence to a human. If a god at any point made him-/her-/itself known to only one person in the history of the world, the argument turns to crap, because that person would have a different intellectually defensible position. So basically, this argument depends on the assumption that there is no god. And not only that, but it makes fools or liars out of every person who ever claimed to have had empirical knowledge of a god’s existence.

2). If the speaker used “agnosticism” to mean that the existence of God is actually unknowable (which I think is the traditional meaning of the word), that means either there is no god, or that any god that might exist is incapable of proving its own existence.

This is basically the opposite of St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument of the existence of God. Anselm defined God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” A god which exists is clearly greater than a god which does not exist, therefore, by Anselm’s definition, God MUST exist. He basically defined God into existence. Ah, the Dark Ages!

If, by saying agnosticism is the only defensible position, this guy’s saying that the existence of a god can’t be known, he’s (probably unknowingly) doing the opposite: defining God OUT of existence. If God’s existence CAN’T be known, that means either A) God doesn’t exist, or B) He/she/it can’t prove it to us. A god who isn’t all-powerful enough to prove his/her/its existence to us isn’t a god at all by any definition I can think of. Therefore, either God doesn’t exist or God doesn’t exist.

I’m not saying agnosticism isn’t intellectually defensible. It absolutely is. But saying it’s the “only defensible position” actually CAN’T be true, because to say that you’d have to be able to prove that God doesn’t exist, and then the position isn’t intellectually defensible anymore.

How about this as a “defensible religious position”: God might exist. If a god does exist, He/She/It might prove his/her/its existence to us, collectively or individually. Or the god might not. Or the god might be on a billion-year vacation, or otherwise completely unconcerned with the happenings of our little galaxy.

Shoulda Been a Stenographer…

This totally makes up for not making the varsity soccer team in high school. Beat my score at TypeRacer.com

[Via my old pal AppScout]

America’s Funniest Found Videos

Went to an amazing show over the weekend that you’ve gotta see. It’s called The Found Footage Festival, and it’s two guys who find old VHS tapes (and, increasingly, DVDs) of home videos, employee training videos, public access shows…anything that will unintentionally get big laughs. They cobble them together into a 90-minute show, and it’s seriously one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen.

Highlights include an Angela Lansbury workout video, a medley of awful pickup lines culled from sexual-harassment-in-the- workplace videos, and twisted cartoon footage from sex-ed and potty training videos. After an hour and a half, I had a headache from laughing so much.

Like America’s Funniest Home Videos, it glorifies those halcyon days of the late ’80s and early ’90s, when every family and wannabe filmmaker had just purchased their first camcorders and were recording all kinds of stupid crap that didn’t make sense, all while wearing terrible, terrible clothes. Like YouTube, it puts on a pedestal those people who are simply too stupid to know just how stupid they look to other people. And like the American Idol auditions, it reminds us that, yes, America really is chock full of crazy people, and they’re drawn to video cameras like moths to a flame.

It looks like this latest version of the Found Film Festival is done in New York for now, but they’ll be in SF in June. Check em out here.

Westin Wants a Hug

A couple pics of my little nephew to brighten your day. I can’t look at these photos without smiling my face off.

Sorry So Slow

Sorry the site’s acting up today. I think it’s a problem with my “Recent Comments” module, but I’m still investigating.

Lost

Dear Sarah Jane: I know you’re out of town, but I don’t think that’s a good excuse not to start the weekly Lost email thread. I know that they have internet in SLC, and I hear it’s even possible to access blogs from there.

There are people counting on you, Sarah Jane, and I don’t just mean the 20 email recipients. I’ve never told you this, but sometimes I forward our lengthy email threads to coworkers who have Lost questions or theories. We were all in the dark re. last night’s episode, except that Corinne knew that Ben’s hotel alias was a guy from Jack Kerouak’s On The Road. I bet she would have really liked to share that with the group. Now she’ll never get a chance…

Other overheard theories: Maybe Whidmore’s the captain of the Black Rock instead of Richard like we supposed. And maybe Whidmore and Ben are each others’ constants, which is why they can’t just kill each other and be done with it.

We could’ve gone on in this kind of speculation for hours, Sarah Jane. Instead I had nothing to do in the office today except, you know, work.

The Free Market Loves Mere


If you haven’t checked out Mere on AmieStreet yet, you’ve missed the gold rush, sorry! The free market has spoken, and has heaped accolades and sales on my humble band, driving up the price of our tunage.

Every album starts out costing $0.00 on AmieStreet and only goes up if lots of people download/buy it (tracks max out at $0.98 each). For a while, AmieStreet’s version of Switches and Dials cost a lot less than our same album on iTunes. As of now, though, the iTunes album is $9.99, and AmieStreet’s has crept up to almost $7. Interestingly, because listeners tend to buy after hearing only a 30-second sample, you can kinda tell which songs people think are the hits. Obviously the song from the Haier commercial is maxed at $0.98, and our up-tempo “hits” (Falling, Crawl, and Anything At All) are in the sixty-cent range. The slow burners, You and I, Circles, and Red in the Dark, are a bit cheaper though. Interesting, because those three are all great songs.

Online Trip Planning Sucks

Dear Internet: You suck at helping people plan vacations. I touched on that point a bit in this PC Mag story about finding cheap flights online, but considering I just spent a month researching and doing price comparisons on travel sites, you’d think planning a vacation wouldn’t be a nightmare anymore.

There are two main problems as I see them (entrepreneurs, take note):

1). TripAdvisor is worthless. The hotel we finally picked to stay in has 500 user-submitted reviews on TA. 250 of them are 5-star reviews. 250 of them are 1-star reviews. I have no idea how to parse that kind of data into something I can use to pick a hotel. In fact, I read the most recent THIRTY reviews of the hotel we’re staying at and I have absolutely no idea what to expect. It’s either pristine or filthy, the staff is either super friendly or surly and mean, the food is either overprice or overpriced (they agreed on that at least).

If you’ve ever wondered why Yelp wants so much personal info from you, it’s to deal with this problem and lend some context to the reviews. As of now I’m left to guess whether Elliot from Albany has hotel tastes that align with mine, or whether I should pay more attention to Arnold from Sacramento.

2) There is no good travel search engine online that uses departure point as search criteria. If I live in New York, I want to search for last-minute deals from New York. Showing me an unbelievable vacation package that involves a flight from Miami to wherever I’m going really doesn’t help at all. This is especially true with searching for cruises. I live by two frickin’ cruise ports, and yet as far as I know there isn’t a single cruise line that lets you search its schedule by departure port.

When Corinne and I are shopping for a vacation, we really don’t care which tropical beach we’re going as long as we can get a good deal. I have to believe there are other people who feel that way too.

Startup idea: GetOuttaHere.com [[take it if it's not taken]]. You enter the name of the airport you’re leaving from, how much you’re willing to spend, and one vacation criteria (ie “beach” or “golf”), and GetOuttaHere spits out a list of matches for you to choose from. To narrow it down, you have two choices for travel dates: This Weekend, Next Weekend.

That’s it. Who wants to go into business?

Info Overload? Trust Serendipity

PR guru Steve Rubel has an interesting video clip on his Micro Persuasion blog about how to deal with information overload. It’s a real issue — both as a journalist and just as a web user, I’m trying to keep up with Twitter, FriendFeed, Facebook, MySpace (for my band), several e-mail accounts, IMs, and a ridiculous number of RSS feeds against which I’m fighting a losing battle.

It’s literally impossible to keep up with everything. It can’t be done. So how do you pick out the good stuff? Rubel shares some good tips in that video, but I think the key might just be serendipitous search, a buzzword that’s become popular with the rise of serendipitous search engines like StumbleUpon. Basically, serendipity in that context means trusting StumbleUpon to point you to Web content that you’ll like, which it generally does very well.

Serendipity in my context means 1) Understanding that I can’t read, see, or write about everything; and 2) trusting my various feeds, my judgment, and my friends to float the good stuff to the top for me. For instance, I’m way behind on reading my RSS feeds. Rubel’s post is sitting in my RSS reader right now, but I’m too behind to have seen it there. But he also posted it on FriendFeed, where, because he’s a friend of a friend, it popped up on my page and I found it. I’m not following him on Twitter, but if I were I could have found it there, too, I’m sure.

Another example: This morning, I deleted an important press release from my inbox before reading it. Luckily, a friend IMed me asking for some info from the release, which I tracked down and read. Turns out it was a product announcement that was important enough that I added the related news article to the PCMag.com homepage.

For every story like these, I’m sure there are plenty in which serendipity fails me and I don’t get info I could have really used. But that’s why the understanding that I can’t read everything is so important. It’s the only way I can deal with the massive flow of info without losing my mind.

I Finished a Book!

Let me share with you some problems with reading non-fiction books: There’s no plot arc, no overarching conflict I’m hoping to see resolved, and the latter chapters are usually lame. As such, I never really have the motivation to finish a book.

This means that I accumulate a ton of books that I “am reading” but which are really sitting in strategic locations around the house. For instance, there’s my bedside book (“Alexander Hamilton”), my living room book (“In Defense of Food”), my longtime-but-now-displaced dinner-table book (“The Better of McSweeney’s”), and the one I ACTUALLY JUST FINISHED: My shoulder-bag book, a Walt Disney biography.

The biography, written by Neil Gabler, wasn’t the best-written biography I’ve read (in fact, I wish I’d been allowed to attack it with a red pen before it went to print), but Walt Disney’s life was fascinating. In fact, I found a lot of surprising corollaries between Disney’s life and Alexander Hamilton’s life, as well as the life of Joseph Smith (another recent biography). Of their three biographies, “Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling” by Richard Bushman, a history professor at Columbia, is by far the best written, but all three are fascinating.

Anyway, all three of those guys seem just preternaturally talented. Not just gifted in any one area, but talented at everything. Hamilton was an illegitimate child from the West Indies who fought with distinction in the revolution (eventually becoming Washington’s right hand man), was instrumental in getting the states to ratify the constitution, founded the treasury dept., coast guard, customs dept., first national bank, and stock exchange, and I believe he was key in setting up the US armed forces. He wrote most of the Federalist Papers along with insane amounts of copy for other newspapers. He was a successful lawyer. And his biography makes it appear that he essentially ran the country as Washington’s right-hand man and head of his cabinet.

Joseph Smith, regardless of whether you think he wrote the Book of Mormon or received it by divine inspiration, at least dictated it (if you’re a believer) and at most wrote the thing (if you’re not) in a matter of months. I’m not sure which would be more incredible. He ended up leading an ever-growing community of believers from New York to Ohio to Missouri to Illinois before the mobs killed him, and he built cities, governments, schools, banks, and temples everywhere he went. He did a translation of the Bible from Hebrew AND German, wrote voluminous journals that became “The History of the Church,” served as mayor of the biggest city in Illinois, founded and ran one of the fastest growing religions, ran for president of the United States, and did all this while dodging mobs that were trying to kill him, and also while struggling to hold down a day job to take care of his family.

Walt Disney never held office; he was encouraged to run for mayor of LA but I think just didn’t want to take the time. He made the first sound cartoon (Steamboat Willie), the first cartoon in color (the one with the two trees that fall in love), the first animated feature (Snow White), and basically invented the modern methods of cartooning. Meaning, he and his team were inventing the technology as they went along, not just making the movies. His was the first major studio to sign a TV deal. He designed and built a theme park with his team of cartoonists, and he had ambitions to build planned, managed Disney cities, as well (that was the original idea for EPCOT) but died before those ideas could come to fruition.

So now, some parallels between the three. All three were ambitious, and had a tendency to make loads of enemies during their lives (Smith and Hamilton were killed by some of theirs). And yet they were also charismatic, in that they were able to attract and build “fanbases” of loyal believers that would stick with them. All three begged for money for a good part of their lives, and none of the three were particularly well-to-do except Disney in his later years. All three were workaholics who loved but tended to neglect their families, and they were all lucky in that they had wives who were independent enough to raise families without them (I’m not being sexist, I’m just saying…).

Lastly, the three of them were inventive and imaginative, able to create and innovate in many different fields. Hamilton reinvented government, Smith reinvented religion, and Disney reinvented entertainment, though none were limited to their field by any means. I suppose I should mention that they were all distinctly, even archetypically, American.

Anyway, just some thoughts on some books I’ve been reading. Didn’t mean for it to turn into a term paper.