Are Atheists less biased than Christians?

Many times I have been admonished by my family and friends about “Going down the wrong path” or "becoming an apostate". Often, the conversation begins in the form of a question, “Why do you reject Jesus?” and “Why are you choosing the path that is going to lead you to hell?” The tone of the questioning is typically condescending. It is coming from an individual who assumes they have most of the correct answers about reality, and that I, a fallen ingrate, needs their assistance in understanding things correctly. After all, they only want to eschew me out of my faulty thinking and my path towards everlasting torment.

I sometimes wish to say back, “It seems so easy for you to just assume that you are right about all this. Have you noticed how I refrain from employing this same tactic? I do not accept any assumption I make with pure ease. I hold assumptions loosely…tentatively, and I do not proceed to go further and create dogma out of them.  I patiently listen to all the Christian CD’s that you have made me. I read every Christian book that you get me for Christmas and I read your unending bible passage texts and the constant stream of email devotionals that you send me. Yet, you can barely tolerate 30 seconds of a debate between Dan Barker and Dinesh D'Souza. If this were a game of fair-mindedness with regards to the other person’s ideological position, there seems to be great deal of imbalance going on.”

Many Christians that I know are unwilling to expand their thinking to include thoughts that are secular in nature (i.e. thinking about events as if there was no god). So, while they want you to read through all of their homemade tracts and listen to their sermons, they will not bring their mind to your side of the fence. The reason, I suppose? They are afraid of doing so. Many Christians think that this act alone—this simple shift in perspective— is moving into satanic territory. This is one reason why Christian leaders often warn their devotees to abstain from reading books by atheists. They truly believe that demonic powers have invested such atheist minds so that they can beguile and corrupt other minds, ultimately bringing their readers to the lordship of Satan.

Unlike the Christian, the atheist/skeptic has no reason to refrain from considering the other person’s perspective (in this case, the Christian perspective). There is no atheist creed with warnings of “Loosing one’s beliefs may result in atheist hell” or “You can be blinded by Christians”. There are no pejorative labels equivalent to “backslider”, “apostate” or “infidel” to slap on former atheists who have changed their minds and have become religious.

While atheists might have logical problems with religious view-points, they won’t be tempted to disown their friends and family members simply for having a “change of mind” (To an atheist, a change of mind carries no spiritual/moral implications but it does for a Christian). To the atheist, actions carry far more weight in the grand scheme of things. For Christians though, a change of mind…a change of thinking or “heart”— is ultimately what determines your place in the afterlife.  This is why the traditional Christian view allows absurd things to happen…like Ted Bundy getting to go to heaven, and Einstein, to hell. (i.e. one of these people changed their mind about Jesus and made a decision to believe in him while they were alive.)

The skeptical position says, “Go ahead; check out all the other world-views! There is nothing inherently diabolical about doing this. In fact, doing so expands your mental horizon so that you can be better informed about different view-points and why certain groups hold them. Furthermore, learning about other views is a good way to avoid the temptation of misrepresenting them.”

My point is that the atheist view is less biased. That is, the atheist is on a less biased thinking platform. If you think I’m wrong, ask yourself, are atheists ever advised not to read Christian literature? Are atheists warned to NOT read the Bible, NOT learn about creationist ideas and to NOT read apologetic books written by Christians? It seems to me, that some of the most informed people about creationism are atheists. These individuals don’t shy away from their “opponent's” position, but instead, seek to learn all about it and then make an assessment about whether it is more or less reasonable than the current position they hold.

Unlike the religious view where the mind has a very deep emotional attachment to a predetermined set of infallible, immutable beliefs,  the skeptical view attempts to make commitments only to reason, reality, logic, truth and evidence. If a piece of evidence appears to disrupt a former idea, that idea can be changed. All ideas are subject to change based on new information.

Need for cognition?

“If you think humanity is high minded, just check out google’s zeitgeist archives for the top ten search terms. Movie and pop stars, bands, top athletes, and current political events are the perennials, with nary a scientist nor scientific discovery among them (and this is after the most popular search terms, those that relate to sex, have been screened out).  
                     Christof Koch, “Consciousness” (neuroscientist, Caltech)

Some people like to have involved conversations about religion, atheism, skepticism, philosophy and science. Many of these people have an easy time tolerating ambiguity, enjoying abstract thinking or entertaining themselves with controversial subject-matter. For such individuals, thinking itself is an artful endeavor that becomes its own reward. These are the kinds of people who relish being in the throes of a florid argument--provided no individual is being personally attacked. An intense need for cognition is a prevailing theme in these people's lives.

 I’ve noticed that people who engage in the above style of thinking, discussion and debate are often reprimanded with the following criticism:  “Stop wasting your time thinking or talking about this” or “Move on to something else” or “This isn’t changing anyone’s mind anyways” or “No one cares” or “You’re just a novice anyways, save the attempted thinking for the professors”.

 Clearly, there are many people who feel uncomfortable or apathetic about conversations that involve the philosophical realm or the pursuit of inquiry to gain knowledge. This type of person has a very low need for cognition. What would they prefer to talk about? Their dog? The reality television show they watched yesterday? The weather? That funny scene in a movie or television show that they just watched? These are fine things to talk about (and everyone already talks about them INCESSANTLY)—but what makes them appreciably more worthy of attention?  There is an endless deluge of concrete minutiae people talk about, but, for some reason, NONE of it receives the same kinds of rebuke and “You’re wasting your time!” that an attempted philosophical or intellectual discussion receives.  It’s as if having a philosophical discussion is the ultimate waste of time—but talking about your favorite celebrity or music artist is NEVER reproached—this is just expected.

Perhaps it is just “normal” to have water-cooler discussions about celebrities and their latest escapades; it is “abnormal” to initiate a Socratic dialogue with a stranger at a bakery (or anywhere else, I guess). If one of these scenarios above is considered “wasting your time” isn’t the other one too? How many times in life have we heard conversations about the first subject? How many times have you seen two people going-at-it in full-fledged Socratic dialogue?

I see it like this: a person is inevitably going to spend their time thinking or talking about certain things in this life. We choose the content that we discuss, that which arouses our sense of intrigue or passion, and this ultimately feeds and programs our brains. The time we spend having a discussion about that person we think is stupid or about our favorite celebrity—could also be time spent thinking about or discussing a scientific principle or philosophical idea.

If you are an individual with a high need for cognition, you get far less pleasure having discussions about events and other people. Instead, you thrive on ideas and how they have sex with—how they merge with other ideas forming new tiers of thought—novel possibilities to better understanding reality. Every invention or theory starts with a trail of thinking—and many times it requires abstract thinking generated from a philosophical or intellectual dialectic. Many people are perfectionists so they say “Why bother if I’m not very good at this kind of foreign thinking?” It doesn't matter if the initial thinking is rudimentary, naive or marked by flaws in reasoning. We all have to start somewhere, and sometimes we struggle in the same spot for  years—even the most brilliant people in the world were once three-year olds. At least here, we are at a place to learn and expand intellectually.

Chit-chat is a kind of rubbish talk; it really cannot advance the mind—or conversation— to new possibilities. While we all participate in this kind of daily drivel, it does take the place of excruciatingly fascinating conversations that we could be having.

We can only hope that more and more people apply their minds to new ideas and to innovative thinking.  With this method, more solutions and possibilities can be explored.

Friendship musings...

 Unless a person lacks a theory of mind, there is a fairly good chance they desire a social dimension to their existence.  Being human, it seems, we have biological needs to interact with and form bonds with other members of society. Many people seem to glide through life, easily forming a variety of meaningful relationships, many times, taking these for granted.

 I am an outside observer to the friendships of others. I notice that many of these connections are intricately woven, laced with rich memories, and they offer the person an escape from the doldrums of life, from the despondency of the sole-self. Friendships might have been formed with co-workers from prior years, classmates from high-school days, quirky neighbors who gave you ice-cream cones, or with roommates from your college days. Perhaps, you have a family. In this case, you are immersed in the interactions and concerns of your children and partner and your social needs are met within this family dynamic.  

As life goes by, I am noticing that it becomes increasingly difficult to form new, in-person female friendships. It seems like females already tend to be more social, and as they approach their mid 30’s and beyond, they have already amassed a variety of friendships from their high-school and college years. They have enough friendships to satisfy their friendship needs (and time constraints) so it becomes difficult and unnecessary to add new friends to their current mix.

Another difficulty with forming friendships is that many people are very discriminating about who they allow into their friend-circumference. Ever notice how humans only tolerate certain kinds of people? Shockingly, people tend to allow friendships to form with individuals from the same race, religious (or non-religious) affiliation, educational background and socioeconomic status.  In other words, humans tend to feel more comfortable around individuals with whom they share commonalities. Is this inherently selfish or simply pragmatic?

Personality seems to be a factor in the formation of friendships. My guess is that people who have more common personality types have an easier time attracting friends. Why?  First of all, if you have a common personality type there is a greater chance you will find another person with your personality type. The number of potential candidates is in your favor. Someone who shares your personality will also have more in common with you…they will naturally be able to relate to you, respond and think in a more similar manner than someone with a very different personality type. People simply get more out of relationships when they feel like they can connect with the other person.

For instance, if you like to ponder intellectual ideas and you’re comfortable with high-spirited, argumentative discussion, but the person you’re befriending feels most comfortable talking about concrete subject matter—like what they did yesterday or about a brand of shoes they like—well, the chances of you striking up a lasting friendship are low. Unless one of the two people in this potential union decides to compromise to the other person’s petty concerns, a friendship will be difficult.

Most of us desire friendships but we also want to maintain our authenticity. That is, we don’t want to have to trade aspects of our personality and preferences just to win the affection of a new, potential confidant. In the end, a relationship built on this kind of self-duplicity will not last; our true personality and beliefs will soon emerge and destroy whatever burgeoning union we thought we had.

Yet, it still seems for almost any friendship to form, some degree of compromise has to happen. I have two female friends. One of them I consider to be a very good friend despite the fact that we have very different world-views. She has views about the world—about religion, medicine and health etc—that are diametrically opposed to my own. I have learned to tolerate her constant bible quoting, her unyielding appeals to naturopathic medicine and her short-sighted quips against the use of vaccines.  Yet, whenever she dives into a subject that I clearly disagree with her on, she always makes an effort to acknowledge the fact that I disagree with her.  She never trudges on with the conversation, taking it for granted that I agree with her.  This means that she asks what I think about her particular view and then she goes on to offer whatever possible support she has for her particular claim. I’ve also seen her willing to consider views that are different from her original views. This makes me realize that she is a good friend to have—despite the fact that our views are so different.

Due to the busyness of life and the fact that many people already have a surplus of friends to take up their time, the marketplace for establishing long-term, in-person friendships is dwindling. This means that if you do want some sort of connection with society, you will be the one who has to compromise. You might even have to go out of your way and seek friendships from such places at Walmart check-out lines. I met a very friendly woman there yesterday. She may have little in common with me, but she does seem to be in need of a friend, just as much as I do.

.

Myers-Briggs Personality Test, What is your personality type?

I was very pleased to take the Myers-Briggs personality inventory in class.  My personality type happens to be the rarest of the 16 possible personality types in the human population. I am an INFJ (Introverted, Intuitive, Feeling and Judging) personality type.

While I am not a staunch advocate (haha) of personality tests rendered by astrology (Forer effect, anyone?), I think tests provided by the psychological sciences such as Myers-Briggs, are AMAZINGLY accurate. Once you take the test, go to Wikipedia for your personality type (e.g. type in INFJ or whatever your four letters are) then, you can read about who you are! It’s actually a little scary how accurate the description is.

 I was further impressed by a depiction of my personality type on another random site:

“INFJs can often be found holding down jobs as AM radio talk-show hosts. They can also be found driving taxis in the greater Washington, DC area. Other common jobs often held by INFJs include vagrant, loony, whacko, and writer/director/producer of the television show "Seinfeld." INFJs can also be found feeding that crucial bit of information to determined FBI agents just before they are brutally murdered.”    Okay, just kidding….(I hope)

A great site to read about your personality and how it matches up with someone else’s personality is provided below. Are the two of you compatible? Which personality types pose problems in a relationship? Remember, you can’t alter your personality a great deal, so you’ll have to accept it and find someone else who happens to work for you and/or accepts you for who you are. Also, if you are one of those people who keeps giving everyone else advice on "how they should act" stop, because it won't work. Personality seems to be very ingrained.

http://www.personalitydesk.com/story/compatibility-and-your-myers-briggs-personality-type

Also, what about least common and most common personality types? See site below:

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5554153_least-common-myersbriggs-types.html

I know there is plenty of information about personality types and relationships but I wonder, what about friendships (and social experience, in general?)? Are some personality types more naturally “loners”? Are some “more accepting of everyone” while others are more gregarious, cliquey and group-thinky? Are there certain personality types who are naturally more popular with people or certain personality types who are naturally smarter?  Also, I noticed that Wikipedia focused heavily on the more positive traits when discussing the various Myers-Briggs personality categories. What about the more negative side? Are some personality types more prone to overconfidence, road-rage or being a clown at the circus?

Satire video, just for fun :)

Probably not the most germane quote, but I like it :)

"What better proof that you have money to spare than your being able to spend it on doodads and stunts that don't fill the belly or keep the rain out but that require precious materials, years of practice, a command of obscure texts or intimacy with the elite" Steven Pinker---

What is the internet doing to our brains?

Could the greater portion of the internet be operating like a fast food restaurant? Offering quick, tasty bites of data and entertainment that really ends up providing nothing beneficial to the brain?...no insight, no thought provocation, no improvement in mental acuity?

Could the presence of the internet be rewiring the circuitry of human brains to want to jump around from one piece of information to the next? The internet may be making it more difficult for the average brain to focus on any particular topic for a protracted interval of time. No one can say whether the human brain has evolved to deal with this constant, instantaneous access to information and entertainment. Are more and more individuals disengaging from reading lengthy books to instead jump from site to site on the internet?

I think that some brains may be more equipped to handle the presence of the internet than others. People who naturally have the ability to be disciplined and delay gratification, individuals who tend to not procrastinate in their projects and pursuits and don’t jump down rabbit trails of inanity (web surfing) will be more able to use the internet in a beneficial manner (that is, use it in ways that help them achieve their goals).

The internet may be acting as a giant selecting mechanism that hinders many individuals (that already have an innate tendency to be more impulsive or have a decreased attention span) from completing their life’s goals. How could it do this? Perhaps it is sucking copious quantities of time from such a person—time that could have been spent exploring more innovative and creative pursuits, inventing something or exercising.

On the contrary, the internet offers many individuals an enhanced means to be creative and explore opportunities that would have been inaccessible to them otherwise.  The internet allows many to make a passive income which aids their survival. Perhaps, without the internet to diminish the sense of boredom, some individuals would be off pillaging, raping, watching reality television shows, or going to church.

The internet is still a very new phenomenon in human history. It will help many and hurt many. Like the technology of genetically modified organisms, the internet is a technology—a tool—that can be used for good and bad purposes. 

What are the components of a good memory?

Many of us would love to have a better memory. I surmise that a strong, focused attention span allows for the development of better memory.  Yet, what causes a person to have a strong attention span in the first place? What makes a person pay stronger, longer attention to some phenomena and not to others?

I want to suggest that phenomena that relates to your person and identity, things that you find peculiar or interesting, things that aggravate you and things that you despise, will entertain your attention span longer than other kinds of phenomena. Perhaps it isn’t just the length of the attention span but how deeply (thoroughly?) we embed the information in our brains and how much wiring our brain devotes to a specific piece or collection of data.

The length of one’s attention span seems also to be important because if you can have a longer attention span for a particular area of knowledge, you will be able to encode and store more of the information about the topic; this results in enhanced memory retrieval.

Furthermore, it seems that anything that evokes a fiery emotional response will also form a more trenchant, recallable memory. One of the problems for developing a better memory in other domains of knowledge (that are entirely new) may be that instead of generating an emotional response, they elicit an indifferent response.  If you find an area of knowledge, say, politics, to “boil your blood” you probably have a better grasp on this subject than someone who has more of a flat, indifferent response to the subject.

 Perhaps the material you are learning bores you or doesn’t pique your interest or excite your thought processes enough to establish focus.  This past quarter I’ve experienced just that. As I reflect on the current subject matter, I see that it doesn’t interest me and it doesn’t relate to any experiences I’ve ever had so my focus and memory (and thus learning) capacity is negatively impacted.  Passing the class matters—and so far, I’m doing that, but for me, longer-term retention is always the ultimate goal

If only there could be a method (or pill) to make us more interested (or more emotionally affected or rewarded?) by a subject so that focus and memory were better played out.