Order 50 Ltd.

Answers to Questions About Atheism

The original remarks I’m responding to in this post come from a discussion on Metafilter.

Science can never offer any meaning or purpose to our lives.

So make your own meaning. If you need invisible sky wizards to make your life worth something, the fault lies with you, not science.

the only people who think science is the opposite of religion are religious fundamentalists.

If you believe in something in your religion that is contradicted by facts and evidence, basically provable science, then yes, indeed, science is the opposite of religion. Continue reading…

The Nerd Handbook

This is, for reference’s sake, a tidy list summary of the brilliant classic blog post “The Nerd Handbook” written by Rands a few years ago. It still stands as true, and thus it ever shall be:

The Nerd Handbook
Understand your nerd’s relation to the computer. (“He sees the world as a system which, given enough time and effort, is completely knowable.”)
Your nerd has control issues. (“These control issues mean your nerd is sensitive to drastic changes in his environment.”)
Your nerd has built himself a cave. (“Each object in the Cave has a particular place and purpose. Even the clutter is well designed.”)
Your nerd loves toys and puzzles. (“The joy your nerd finds in his project is one of problem solving and discovery.”)
Nerds are fucking funny. (“Humor is an intellectual puzzle, ‘How can this particular set of esoteric trivia be constructed to maximize hilarity as quickly as possible?’”)
Your nerd has an amazing appetite for information. (“Your nerd knows very little about a lot. For many topics, his knowledge is an inch deep and four miles wide.”)
Your nerd has built an annoyingly efficient relevancy engine in his head. (“For any given piece of incoming information, your nerd is making a lightning fast assessment: relevant or not relevant?”)
Your nerd might come off as not liking people. (“The skills to interact with other people are there. They just lack a well-defined system.”)

Advanced Nerd Tweakage
Map the things he’s bad at to the things he loves. (“You need to appeal to his deep love of discovering new content…”)
Make it a project. (“Significant nerd behavioral change is only going to happen if your nerd engages in the project heart and soul, otherwise it’s just another thought for the irrelevant bucket.”)
People are the most interesting content out there. (“You need to find one common thread of interest between your nerd and your friend and then he’ll engage because he will have found relevance.”)

The reason I posted this here is to remind myself (and others like me) that we are not complicated monsters of geekdom; we are creatures of systems, values, and rules. Once you understand those, then you understand us. I doubt I could put it as eloquently or as tidily as Rands did, so I won’t try. A few things he mentions are completely accurate to myself, but those are mere details. The overall point applies: we’re interested in systems, order, logic and connecting that to the rest of the world is the key to making us a little more normal. Give his post a view; it’s a longer read, but worth it.

Rands on Rules

I’m a nerd and I’m predisposed to fucking love rules because a logical and well-followed rule keeps the well-defined system functioning smoothly. It keeps us on the same page, it sets expectations, and it makes the world a more predictable place.

Hm. I smile, knowing he’s right.

The opposite of science

For some time, I’ve been trying to create a Library of Congress-style taxonomy for all of my books, with plans to make it practical enough to use in any categorization. One of the uses would be (and has begun to be) for this blog, in categorizing all post subjects. The LOC system is, as efficient as it seems on the surface, horribly flawed. Let’s take a look at why:

• Class A – General Works
• Class B – Philosophy, Psychology, Religion
• Class C – Auxiliary Sciences of History (General)
• Class D – World History (except American History)
• Class E and F – American History
• Class F – Local History of the United States and British, Dutch, French, and Latin America
• Class G – Geography, Anthropology, Recreation
• Class H – Social Sciences
• Class J – Political Science
• Class K – Law
• Class L – Education
• Class M – Music
• Class N – Fine arts
• Class P – Language and Literature
• Class Q – Science
• Class R – Medicine
• Class S – Agriculture
• Class T – Technology
• Class U – Military Science
• Class V – Naval Science
• Class Z – Bibliography, Library Science

The problem? Several of those categories should be broader or combined. History has four big categories and all of literature is combined with language? So I thought, Why not combine them logically? Putting the different sciences together into one big category and then subdividing it thusly:

Science

• Applied Science
  • Agriculture
  • Electronics
  • Genetics
  • Mechanics
  • Medicine
• Formal Science
  • Logic
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics
• Natural Science
  • Astronomy
  • Biology
  • Chemistry
  • Earth Sciences
  • Physics
• Social Science
  • Anthropology
  • Archaeology
  • Criminology
  • Economics
  • Geography
  • History
  • Linguistics
  • Political Science
  • Psychology
  • Sociology

…and so on. But where to put things like film, music, sports, games? In an opposite category of course. But what do I call it? Art? (No, that’s about arranging elements to invoke emotion, and that would discount sports, generally) Emotionality? Intuitivity? Aesthetics? FUN? This was a stumper and had been bothering me for a couple of years at least. But I think I finally have some sort of idea — in fact, I’m pretty sure that by simply repurposing an existing word and following word-coinage convention, we can split everything up into two major categories: science and… not-science. Continue reading…

Why does Libertarian = Idiot?

This is copied from a conversation I’m engaged in on Metafilter.

[W]hy does Libertarian = idiot?

Because libertarianism is not a political theory or philosophy; it’s a comfortable justification of selfishness. And they’d rather be comforted than educated.
posted by grubi at 11:38 AM on July 8

Er, those two are virtual synonyms. But, saying that libertarianism isn’t a political theory or philosophy is rather disingenuous. That’s not to say that it isn’t a rather selfish, wrong-headed, and short sighted philosophy, but it’s still a more or less cohesive body of thought.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:49 AM on July 8

My reasoning is based on the idea that a genuine political philosophy would ostensibly be about what one thinks is the best way to govern. And the arguments handed down from libertarian writers/thinkers don’t seem to be about how best to govern, but about how best to justify individual self-centeredness.

I know it’s not the standard definition, but this is what I meant.
posted by grubi at 12:40 PM on July 8

Agreed, then. A libertarian government would either quickly collapse or quickly revert to Republican-esque policies.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:53 PM on July 8

A prelude to anarchy! ANARCHY, I SAY!
posted by grubi at 1:37 PM on July 8

Good Friday, indeed.

Dig this:
1. God made us and he made the Rules. We sinned. Because we can. He created a son, his own flesh.
2. He manipulated people so that they would torture and kill that son. He resurrected the son. He claims it “had to be done” to wash away our sins. Because the Rules say so. The Rules he made up.
3. And you should be grateful, you sinful prick!

In other words:
1. He gave us a gift.
2. He assigned a value to that gift.
3. He wants to be repaid. Forever.

It’s as if someone barged into my house, handed me a sandwich I did not ask for nor necessarily wanted, and then started following me around yelling “YOU OWE ME. I TOTALLY GAVE YOU THAT SANDWICH, DUDE.” If it’s a gift, then how do I owe you shit?

The whole premise of Christianity rests on a dickhead who insists you owe him forever or he’ll kick your ass.

Ponderance.

How can God exist everywhere all at once and somehow be completely unobservable?

If you assign no attributes to God, then how can he exist? If he has no shape, no form, no mass, no anything, how can he exist? And if you do define attributes and those attributes are completely unobservable, how can he exist?

Everything that exists by definition is observable in some way. Continue reading…