Sunday, November 1, 2009
Produce Mike is Toby
Am I the only one that thinks Produce Mike at Amazon Fresh bears a striking resemblance to Toby from The Office?
Friday, October 9, 2009
Richard Dawkins Comes to Amazon
The famed evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins came to give a talk at Amazon.com to promote his new book The Greatest Show on Earth. Fishbowl, as it's called, is one of the limited perks Amazon employees get. The company will bring in a variety of authors to promote recently released books/media and the like. Former guests have included the likes of Tom Douglas, Chris Tomlin (I had never heard of the guy until a few months ago), and uhm… that's all I can remember right now. My point is that the event hosts a wide variety of characters, and not just militant atheists.
I think the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are some of the least productive voices of our time. As Tim Keller says, the idea that religion is bad has been around for a long time. Atheists have been around since at least the time of King David (see Psalm 14:1-3). Their idea is that respect for religion is bad. That faith which gives people meaning, value, purpose, and spurs them on to perform great service for humanity. That this is bad and that culture should not honor it -- this idea is indeed somewhat new. Dawkins doesn't just put forth a strong argument for what he believes (or, heh, lack of believes -- see my previous post), he encourages others to mock and disdain those of faith. This, my friends, is poison.
So I decided to attend as part of the loyal opposition.
First, some observations about the event itself. Overwhelmingly male (moreso than normal). Extremely crowded (people spilling out of the room). Very high level of engagement from the audience. People asking questions. People nodding. People laughing at his jokes. He knew his audience and many times made allusions from biology to programming. He is a really good communicator.
Now on to the main event. My huge annoyance with Dawkins. He continually, again and again, draws a false dichotomy between accepting evolutionary science (in whole or in part) and believing in God. Christians have a wide variety of views on the interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2, many of which accommodate evolution perfectly well. His snide comments about creationists were a hit at the talk, and they were artfully intermixed with other other facets of Christian culture. Those who haven't had a chance to hear a more complete version of the Christian worldview are left thinking that if you go to a church with a cross on the front, that automatically means you think the Earth is 10,000 years old. This is dishonest. Someone asked later in the talk if they thought that creationism was popular because it was more simple -- easier to understand than the evolutionary story. I found this wholly ironic, because the story the Bible tells is far from simple, and the only reason it appears simple is because Dawkins is presenting a stripped down version, free from complexity or nuance in a way that's easy to attach to an out-group.
Another interesting question someone asked was if Dawkins believed that humans are evolved to believe in God. He had a very long and nuanced answer, but the essence was that he believed humans have evolved a predisposition to submit to authority. The implication, while not stated, was that this somehow makes belief in God not real, since it's a relic from tribal days or some such. I think the far more interesting question is whether we're evolved to believe in evolution and science, and trusting in our own rational self-sufficiency. For questions like these, evolution provides non-answers more than anything else.
That's about all I have to say. Oh… I was really disappointed they weren't giving out t-shirts. Maybe next time.
Relevant/interesting links that I unsuccessfully tried to contextualize. Here they are anyway:
I think the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are some of the least productive voices of our time. As Tim Keller says, the idea that religion is bad has been around for a long time. Atheists have been around since at least the time of King David (see Psalm 14:1-3). Their idea is that respect for religion is bad. That faith which gives people meaning, value, purpose, and spurs them on to perform great service for humanity. That this is bad and that culture should not honor it -- this idea is indeed somewhat new. Dawkins doesn't just put forth a strong argument for what he believes (or, heh, lack of believes -- see my previous post), he encourages others to mock and disdain those of faith. This, my friends, is poison.
So I decided to attend as part of the loyal opposition.
First, some observations about the event itself. Overwhelmingly male (moreso than normal). Extremely crowded (people spilling out of the room). Very high level of engagement from the audience. People asking questions. People nodding. People laughing at his jokes. He knew his audience and many times made allusions from biology to programming. He is a really good communicator.
Now on to the main event. My huge annoyance with Dawkins. He continually, again and again, draws a false dichotomy between accepting evolutionary science (in whole or in part) and believing in God. Christians have a wide variety of views on the interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2, many of which accommodate evolution perfectly well. His snide comments about creationists were a hit at the talk, and they were artfully intermixed with other other facets of Christian culture. Those who haven't had a chance to hear a more complete version of the Christian worldview are left thinking that if you go to a church with a cross on the front, that automatically means you think the Earth is 10,000 years old. This is dishonest. Someone asked later in the talk if they thought that creationism was popular because it was more simple -- easier to understand than the evolutionary story. I found this wholly ironic, because the story the Bible tells is far from simple, and the only reason it appears simple is because Dawkins is presenting a stripped down version, free from complexity or nuance in a way that's easy to attach to an out-group.
Another interesting question someone asked was if Dawkins believed that humans are evolved to believe in God. He had a very long and nuanced answer, but the essence was that he believed humans have evolved a predisposition to submit to authority. The implication, while not stated, was that this somehow makes belief in God not real, since it's a relic from tribal days or some such. I think the far more interesting question is whether we're evolved to believe in evolution and science, and trusting in our own rational self-sufficiency. For questions like these, evolution provides non-answers more than anything else.
That's about all I have to say. Oh… I was really disappointed they weren't giving out t-shirts. Maybe next time.
Relevant/interesting links that I unsuccessfully tried to contextualize. Here they are anyway:
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The Introvert Hangover
I did a quick Google search for the term -- there's not much out there. So either I made it up myself or overheard it elsewhere.
The introvert hangover is the feeling that introverts get after having interacted with a large number of people they don't know. It is normally accompanied by intense urges to simply be quiet or alone. Further interaction with others requires even more effort than it typically would otherwise -- only by sheer force of will. Physical symptoms may accompany this as well -- headaches, a feeling of numbness, and fatigue are all common.
To compare it to an alcohol-induced hangover, such as one would experience after a night of heavy drinking is perhaps overstating the case. But it is no less real.
See also: Caring for your introvert
The introvert hangover is the feeling that introverts get after having interacted with a large number of people they don't know. It is normally accompanied by intense urges to simply be quiet or alone. Further interaction with others requires even more effort than it typically would otherwise -- only by sheer force of will. Physical symptoms may accompany this as well -- headaches, a feeling of numbness, and fatigue are all common.
To compare it to an alcohol-induced hangover, such as one would experience after a night of heavy drinking is perhaps overstating the case. But it is no less real.
See also: Caring for your introvert
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Intellectual Dishonesty in Atheism
I was an atheist for about 8 years. During that time, I argued about religion -- a lot. Since then, I've become a Christian, however, I still think a lot about conversations regarding the topic in the past. Today, I thought I'd share one of the ways in which I argued for atheism that was particularly effective, but wholly disingenuous.
First, we have to define the exact scope of the term atheism.
Scope #1. Consider the etymology of the word "atheism." The prefix "a" means "without" and the word "theism" refers to a system of belief in God. The word atheism thus means "without a belief in God." An atheist is not necessarily someone who disbelieves in God, merely he is someone who is without a belief in God. This is a subtle, but crucially important distinction. The lack of belief is not belief.
Scope #2. Frame atheism in the context of secular humanism. The atheism of #1 is joined with a materialistic philosophy, some belief in human rights, and the idea that humanity is progressing forward via smarter thinking and better organization of society. Secular humanism is kind of hard to pin down. There are a bunch of manifestos written on the matter, but it's not clear there's a strong degree of cohesion or leadership as a movement.
Here's the strategy, as an atheist, I often employed:
It's very easy to argue in this way, but it is neither consistent, nor sincere. Either atheism prescribes nothing (#1) or it does (#2) -- atheists can't have it both ways.
Arguing from either position is valid, but muxing the two together is intellectually dishonest.
First, we have to define the exact scope of the term atheism.
Scope #1. Consider the etymology of the word "atheism." The prefix "a" means "without" and the word "theism" refers to a system of belief in God. The word atheism thus means "without a belief in God." An atheist is not necessarily someone who disbelieves in God, merely he is someone who is without a belief in God. This is a subtle, but crucially important distinction. The lack of belief is not belief.
Scope #2. Frame atheism in the context of secular humanism. The atheism of #1 is joined with a materialistic philosophy, some belief in human rights, and the idea that humanity is progressing forward via smarter thinking and better organization of society. Secular humanism is kind of hard to pin down. There are a bunch of manifestos written on the matter, but it's not clear there's a strong degree of cohesion or leadership as a movement.
Here's the strategy, as an atheist, I often employed:
- For anything positive having to do with atheism or negative to do with religion, go to the 2nd view of atheism. Talk about the advances of modern science. Science equals progress. Superstition and religion equal bloodshed.
- For anything negative about atheism, go to the first view. The response is simple: how can the lack of belief in something do... anything? Particularly helpful here is a constant refrain of "you clearly don't know what atheism is."
It's very easy to argue in this way, but it is neither consistent, nor sincere. Either atheism prescribes nothing (#1) or it does (#2) -- atheists can't have it both ways.
Arguing from either position is valid, but muxing the two together is intellectually dishonest.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Identity
I've been thinking a lot about identity lately. Folks at my church have been talking about it for the better part of a year. A more through treatment is given to the topic in Instruments in the Redeemers Hands, but in slightly different language.
What exactly is identity?
When talking about identity, it's usually pretty easy to come up with a list of places where we put our identity. I like to think of them as coming from one of three buckets:
Why does this matter? Christians believe that the only identity that will bring lasting joy (and that which pleases God) is an identity in God himself. Ecclesiastes is a fantastic book on the matter. Here's Solomon talking about identity in ideas (wisdom):
Enough with the background. None of this is really new. I had an epiphany over my recent holiday, and I thought I'd share it. Here's the big idea: the lack of an identity in some thing can be an identity itself.
So let's unroll what I mean be the lack of an identity. I don't mean simply lacking an identity, but actively disassociating one's self with an identity, typically joined with an identity that is opposite in character. Let's call this an anti-identity. Here are some examples:
The anti-identity is "I'm not ____."
What is it about the things we identify with that makes them so pernicious? It's that as we are drawn to them, they do not draw near to us. It's an asymmetric relationship: generally speaking, the more we put into these, the less we get back. They consume the mind and our time, making devotion to God an ever more difficult endeavor. Having an anti-identity does a similar thing -- yet normally it's not that we get less back, it's that we go into identity debt.
Only focusing on that which we positively identify with, and ignoring those things that we actively don't identify with is only getting at half of the idolatry in our lives.
What exactly is identity?
- That which you pour time, energy, and resources (to use a more Christianese term, it's what you "worship")
- That which gives life meaning and purpose
- That which, if it went away, would cause the most despair
When talking about identity, it's usually pretty easy to come up with a list of places where we put our identity. I like to think of them as coming from one of three buckets:
- Things: job, hobbies, sports, travel, experiences
- People: (girl|boy)friend, spouse, family, friends
- Ideas: causes, politics, art, music
Why does this matter? Christians believe that the only identity that will bring lasting joy (and that which pleases God) is an identity in God himself. Ecclesiastes is a fantastic book on the matter. Here's Solomon talking about identity in ideas (wisdom):
When I applied my heart to know wisdom, and to see the business that is done on earth, how neither day nor night do one's eyes see sleep, then I saw all the work of God that man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun. However much man may toil in seeking, he will not find it out. Even though a wise man claims to know, he cannot find it out. (Eccl 9:16-17)
Enough with the background. None of this is really new. I had an epiphany over my recent holiday, and I thought I'd share it. Here's the big idea: the lack of an identity in some thing can be an identity itself.
So let's unroll what I mean be the lack of an identity. I don't mean simply lacking an identity, but actively disassociating one's self with an identity, typically joined with an identity that is opposite in character. Let's call this an anti-identity. Here are some examples:
- I'm a Democrat... and I'm not a Republican
- I'm married... and I'm not single
- I live in the city... and not in the country
- I'm a Christian... and I'm not an atheist
The anti-identity is "I'm not ____."
What is it about the things we identify with that makes them so pernicious? It's that as we are drawn to them, they do not draw near to us. It's an asymmetric relationship: generally speaking, the more we put into these, the less we get back. They consume the mind and our time, making devotion to God an ever more difficult endeavor. Having an anti-identity does a similar thing -- yet normally it's not that we get less back, it's that we go into identity debt.
Only focusing on that which we positively identify with, and ignoring those things that we actively don't identify with is only getting at half of the idolatry in our lives.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Humble Yourselves
This afternoon, I visited the flagship REI store over in South Lake Union to pick up a variety of items for my upcoming trip to New York City, Greece, and Israel. It's impressive how the South Lake Union neighborhood is getting built out. To my excitement, I noticed a Portage Bay Cafe within walking distance of the new Amazon.com campus. Score.
If anyone was to look at all the items I was carrying, it was obscenely obvious that I was going on a trip. Convertible cargo pants. Voltage converters and adapters. Neck pillow. There would be no hiding my intentions this afternoon.
As I was checking out, there was a girl who asked me where I was going. So I told her. To which she asked if I had seen this documentary, about Christians committing genocide in Lebanon called Waltz with Bashir. I immediately began to try to explain away, defend, and justify the inherent goodness of Christianity. I told her that clearly, genocide is not Biblical (at least in the new covenant) and that maybe these people were not very good Christians. She then asked what I thought about the crusades -- which I tried to explain away as a political issue, since the state was so closely wed to religion.
But none of these explanations were right. My response was entirely wrong. It was born out of pride, a want to be righteous, and a desire to see the glory of my own in-group. The correct response is, "Yes. I know Christians suck. Please forgive me and my fellow believers. We need to be rebuked and it makes me sad that it takes non-believers to point this out. Christians do good, but for the grace of God -- we can't take credit for it. Please bear with us."
To "Humble yourselves, therefore under the mighty hand of God" (1 Pet5:6) turns out to be harder than would first seem. I will watch Waltz with Bashir next weekend with this conversation close to mind.
If anyone was to look at all the items I was carrying, it was obscenely obvious that I was going on a trip. Convertible cargo pants. Voltage converters and adapters. Neck pillow. There would be no hiding my intentions this afternoon.
As I was checking out, there was a girl who asked me where I was going. So I told her. To which she asked if I had seen this documentary, about Christians committing genocide in Lebanon called Waltz with Bashir. I immediately began to try to explain away, defend, and justify the inherent goodness of Christianity. I told her that clearly, genocide is not Biblical (at least in the new covenant) and that maybe these people were not very good Christians. She then asked what I thought about the crusades -- which I tried to explain away as a political issue, since the state was so closely wed to religion.
But none of these explanations were right. My response was entirely wrong. It was born out of pride, a want to be righteous, and a desire to see the glory of my own in-group. The correct response is, "Yes. I know Christians suck. Please forgive me and my fellow believers. We need to be rebuked and it makes me sad that it takes non-believers to point this out. Christians do good, but for the grace of God -- we can't take credit for it. Please bear with us."
To "Humble yourselves, therefore under the mighty hand of God" (1 Pet5:6) turns out to be harder than would first seem. I will watch Waltz with Bashir next weekend with this conversation close to mind.
hi.
I started this blog because I had some thoughts that were hard to express in 140 characters or less.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)