Faith and Certitude | Why atheism fails

Back to Series Index >>
This is part of a series of notes in response to "Faith and Certitude" by Thomas Dubay

This post will cover two chapters in Dubay's book, entitled "A Case in Point: Atheism" and "Another Case: Theism." I'll primarily just quote Dubay, as his quotes beautifully illustrate his line of argument. In turn, I believe the quotes also illustrate how poor the argument actually is. Off we go, then.

Issues with Atheism

Most humans are religious:

Man is a religious animal, the sole religious animal on earth. Both personal experience and scientifically conducted polls indicate that a large majority of the human race both in developing and in advanced societies accepts the existence of God.

Those in the majority, regardless of their grasp, have sufficient enough reason to believe justifiably:

I do not claim that simple people could express, or in many cases, cearly conceive the reasons we now consider. But I do suggest that they do perceive in their own uncomplicated manner much of what is contained in this chapter. They feel and see the case against atheism in ways that are both accurate and adequate, even though their approaches may not satisfy the rigid canons of logic.

Because we feel strongly that certain things really "are," though intangible, they really are. This is how theists believe in god and why atheist/materialist answers fail:

In the same way ordinary men and women are rightly sure of much in human life that they cannot cast in to strict logical form: a spouse's love, their own mortality, the existence of Napoleon, the beauty of a Beethoven symphony. Anyone who has stood quietly on a beach or gazed upon the splendor of a night sky away from city lights or...looked deeply into the innocent eyes or a four-month-old baby easily perceives that materialism is bankrupt when it comes to explaining the visible universe. no one is really satisfied with the chance "explanation", for it is no explanation at all.

He goes on to list ways we're different from animals: they don't make art, they don't wear clothes, experience shame, reads or writes, tells or understands jokes, uses money, gets bored, etc. He lists some questions he says materialism cannot answer:

Why is there anything...anything at all? Why am I? Why am I inclined to evil only to feel guilty about it? Is death my doom? Am I destined to black nothingness? Ought I to despair? If not, how do I prepare for death? What can make sense out of this life?

He plops this nice set of "materialist dogmas" down in the reader's lap:

...the autonomy of self, the primacy of pleasure, the invalidity of metaphysics, the supremacy of man, the relativity of morality, the impossibility of miracles, the denial of freedom. These are all dogmas, for they have never been proved. They cannot be proved. They are mere assumptions without even the claim to a revelation to substantiate them.

And now for the best part. Dubay takes on some atheist arguments against god. I can't fathom why he chose the ones that he did. He only uses three: that since not everyone believes in god, god does not exist, the denial of metaphysics (a transcendent reality), and to attempt an explanation of why humans believe in god (and thus to classify it as a psychological phenomenon that is not based on reality). Again, I don't know why these three. I sure wouldn't have chosen these as my tour de force for rebutting atheism.

To the first, Dubay simply points out that universal belief doesn't entail truth or falsehood. Bravo. But what, then of the opening quote he uses to support theism? It would seem one can't have it both ways. A majority tendency toward religious affections shouldn't be evidence in favor of theism if a hypothetical majority belief against theism wouldn't count against it.

The second is dealt with so briefly that I won't bother with it. I won't deal with the second now, as Dubay essentially just says that an atheist can always deny evidence for god's existence, just as he can deny evidence for France's existence. He alludes to the "vast number of diverse evidences" for god that he will discuss in the next chapter, so it's better to just leave that for now.

To end the chapter, Dubay lists "impossibilities of atheism," stating that he will outline three conclusions which necessarily follow from atheism that contradict reason itself:

1. "...the atheist must hold to blind chance as the origin of an unimaginably complex universe. Either there is a supreme Designer of the unspeakable complexities of visible reality or it all happened through unknowing, blind and chance collisions of fundamental particles."
2. "The second impossibility flowing out of atheism is its inability to explain men and women to themselves. There is no denying the fact that if materialism were right, there would be no basis for assigning any special value to the human person."
3. "The third impossibility rooted in atheism is its lack of rationality and the ultimate nihilism to which it necessarily leads the consistent mind. If there is no purpose in the universe, no sense given in it, there is then no reason to suppose that reason itself makes sense."

As for the first, I don't know the answer. Considerable developments have occurred since this book was published in 1985. Still, perhaps we will never know the "ultimate explanation" for why the universe exists. This challenge doesn't provide reasons why we should hypothesize a highly complex, entirely separate type of entity that is even more complex than the universe to explain the complexity of the universe. It's possible, but there seems to be no reason to make that leap except for our own perplexity.

The second is another difficult one. Morality and related areas are ones of ongoing interest to me. I'm aware of various secular moral systems that attempt to define the existence of moral values (e.g. Universal Utilitarianism and Desire Utilitarianism), but I have never been intimidated by the fact that morality might simply be what those capable enough to think about it communally agree to define it as, or behavioral principles we, as humans, collectively ascribe to live by. If that was it, that would be okay with me. There may be no ultimate justice. That's okay and it's why organized societies invest in law enforcement. Materialism or theism aside, humans still may have some of the most advance capacities for experiencing pleasure and pain and thinking. This might just qualify us for having a "special value" assigned to us.

The third seems like a superset of the second. If there is no ultimate meaning, there is no moral meaning or special value of anything. I can agree that perhaps there is no reason to trust reason... except that it's established itself, thus far, via induction. That's enough for me. I once had someone ask me upon learning of my crisis of faith why I trusted that anything was consistent. Why should I rely on anything as predictable. The first thing I could think of to say was that if the tides stopped performing as they previously had tomorrow, I'd stop believing in them. This might be the best that we can do. As long as math, reason, logic, material things, etc. continue behaving like themselves, I'll hold off on believing that 2+2=3.

As the final conclusion to the chapter, Dubay opens up a can of all out attack on atheism regarding its narrow dogmas:

The dogmas of materialism are narrow because they are by their very nature monistic, one-principled... The theist...can approach any alleged happening with a completely open mind. He need not take a negative position from the very start. He can ask for all the evidence and then make up his mind according to how weak or strong it may be. Not so the materialist. He lives in a small, deterministic universe and must in principle close his eyes to any allegation that threatens his unproved premise. this is dogmatism in its most obnoxious form.

Well, I'm shocked. What a role reversal. Even as a believer I was surprised that the Catholic Charismatic renewal was so outrightly dismissed by members of the Catholic answers forum. They thought praying in tongues might even be of the devil! In any case, since deconverting, I've yet to meet a believer who's approached anything I've suggested might be suspect with an open mind. No Catholic in my circles really thinks that what they find might challenge their prior beliefs; nothing ever seems to be surprising (Paul not mentioning Jesus' life, studies finding prayers have no effect, etc.) To be fair, I don't expect anything that's brought to me will have much of a shot of proving to me that ghosts, god, or goblins are real, either. I think it's a human condition, not an atheistic one. It's something I'm working on myself. A read of one of Luke Muehlhauser's posts recently called me on to be more cautious toward fellow nonbelievers. Similar beliefs is no guarantee of valid evidence or support in favor of one's arguments. I can't be a diode; I need to filter all claims equally skeptically.

He paints quite a sad picture of nonbelief. I'm not sure why. I'd be interested in some type of survey or study that delved into whether or not nonbelievers were the sad lot that theists (or at least Dubay) make them out to be. I have suffered considerable emotional trauma, but this is at a social level -- the pains associated with departing from a common belief with friends, family, and my own wife -- not a sadness associated with there being no god. In fact, I have a renewed sense of wonder about the world. I want to know everything and live the only life I have to the fullest.

Why theism is awesome

Dubay seems to really love blatant assertions. After claiming that atheism is the result of all-encompassing skepticism about everything that can only lead to sadness, he opens up his next chapter with this tidbit: "...theism is the normal condition issuing in happiness." Funny enough, during the course of writing this, I just read a fantastic study that looked to see if supernatural explanations were intuitive to children. As it turns out, they're not; they have to be taught/learned. Perhaps in this sense, religion isn't "normal."

Dubay's primary argument is a continuation of his assertion that atheism entails nihilism:

Because they have not thought deeply about their position, most atheists do not realize that if they are consistent, they must be nihilists. They must deny and damn everything. Nothing can make sense. On the other hand, once a person affirms a trust in reality, he must logically be a theist. Just as the sense of an unabridged dictionary demands a mind behind it, so the sense of a vastly more complicated world demands a supreme mind behind it.

Every time this comes up, I just keep scratching my head. I perhaps need it explained why nothing can make any sense. I trust that reality, so far as it has proven itself, will keep behaving like it has. When it stops, so shall my belief in it. What's the matter with that?

Dubay's second argument pro-theism is that man has an "inner ache." Because we aren't ever really satisfied on earth, there must be a supernatural reality where we are really satisfied. Again, I don't see why this is the case. What if I long to be reconciled with a long lost family member who ends up in hell. Should I assume that this desire to be friends with them again is guaranteed to be fulfilled? What if contemplative prayer brings me a profound desire to touch Jesus' wounds. Will that be manifest in heaven? We want all kinds of things. This doesn't mean that we'll get them. I think it's more likely that its evolutionarily advantageous to want to be alive than not, and that's why we might experience this yearning.

Dubay also revisits the complexity of the universe, highlighting all kinds of neat things and their beauty and wonder. I share this appreciation for the universe; I just don't think we have such a response because a disembodied omni-max mind made it that way.

He adds to his list the miracles of Lourdes, citing that 64 have been verified and approved as true "miracles" by the Church. While I don't argue with their puzzling nature, I do argue that if 64 miracles count for theism, then the millions that weren't healed count against theism. Apparently, about 200 million have visited Lourdes since its opening in 1860. This gives us a 0.000032% miracle rate, and that's for primarily Catholics (those with the right faith) who traveled specifically for the purpose of trying to be closer to god.

Furthermore, I once tried to find out if anyone had been fatally injured at Lourdes. I'm sure that given its great number of visitors, some good number of them have experienced a heart attack or tripped and hurt themselves somewhere. I couldn't verify this, though. What I did find in my hunting, though, was a great number of horrible accidents that have killed and maimed pilgrims on their way to various religious sites around the world. These are people who were taking time out of their lives to serve and worship god who were killed in planes, trains, and automobiles. If 64 miracles out of millions of visitors needs to be explained by non-Catholics, surely these dead would-have-been pilgrims need some explanation, too.

Dubay continues on with the "figure of Jesus."

So lofty, so consistent, so pure, so sufficing, so beautiful are his person and message that they can have no source but divinity. The thoroughly good person sees this immediately.

I love these sly and embedded insults. If you don't see that Jesus was obviously divine, you must be un-thoroughly good. Because I, revered Dubay, said so. Are you serious? Christianity isn't even the majority faith of the world. Billions of people are well aware of Christianity, the Bible, and this Jesus guy, and aren't even compelled for a second to doubt their Islam, Hindu, or Buddhist backgrounds. In fact, his message is so obviously divine that Christians can't even agree on what its implications are with respect to the eucharist, saints, the role of his mother, contraception, abortion, divorce... and so on.

Conslusion

I initially read this book with a great deal of hope. Quite quickly, however, its tone grated on me in the same way that D'Souza's would later on. Dubay writes for the already converted. His arguments struck me as insanely simple: "Look at X. If it's not obvious to you how it is a reason to be a theist, then you are mentally or emotionally defective." It probably served as quite the rallying cry for Christians, but it surely didn't reach me very deeply. I'm on quite the opposite end of the spectrum. I initially expected it to be quite the simple matter to prove or disprove god. I embarked upon my quest for truth quite optimistic. Here I am two years later, frustrated and just wanting to be done. I find the world to be the best evidence yet for the ambiguity of the supernatural world. How someone can write a book this confident and assertive and be in any sense aware of the actual world in which we live is beyond me.

On "unequally yoked" marriage | Part 1 of ?

This is the first post among an unknown number of posts to come about "unequally yoked" marriage. Googling for "unequally yoked" produces an absurd amount of hits. I've found most to be about what to do before marriage. I'd like to write a bit about what it's like from within marriage.

Here's a link to the index for this series
---
Note: This post got looooong. If you find you don't have the time or desire to read all of it, skim the "Summary" section and skip to the last two sections on "Current Developments" and "Reflections."
---

As my blog tagline says, I want this site to be about remedying deficiency. One candidate for this is in my marriage. I'd like to start posting about my thoughts on being in a marriage in which one believes in god (Catholicism) and one does not. I have tried to read a lot about this topic in other blogs, sites, and forums. There is a lot out there. I don't know that I'd say much of it is helpful. I'll categorize my survey of the landscape like this:

• Wishy washy: of the sites and people providing advice that actually try to be helpful, most of what is provided is not very concrete, direct, or specific. "Bear with it," "hang in there," "be patient," "respect one another" and so on.
• Bail-out: A good number of posts and discussions simply ask/say this: "Do you have kids yet? No? Run for the hills." Nuff said.
• My spouse doesn't care: The ones discussing staying together often do so from the point of relating personally with the type of situation but are often in a form of it in which the other spouse is only a believer for social or emotional reasons and doesn't actually care if the spouse believes or not

Sure, this is somewhat of a caricature, but I think you won't find it to be much of a stretch. I'd like to at least attempt something different. I'm not sure how this post "series" will continue as I develop my thoughts. For now, I'll simply "bare all" about how the last 10 months has gone and what my current thoughts are.

Summary

My marriage has been about the worst part of this entire "quest" for many reasons. I'll try to handle them in a reasonably organized fashion...


--( Time keeps on slipping, slipping, slipping... )--
For better or for worse, I attack subjects I want to learn about. It's been like this forever. I always think that when I'm done with "just this next thing" I'll finally be at peace and able to kick my feet up and relax and get to "what matters." Unfortunately, something always comes along and piques my curiosity so that I either a) don't even finish the current task or b) switch gears as soon as the current task is done. This has been, by far the most prolonged, involved, draining focus I've ever had. I'm tempted to call it a chore because my interests are usually things that are reasonably fun for me: taking my bike apart, studying cell phone plan prices, destroying a mutlilevel marketing scheme mathematically, installing FreeBSD on a dual-booting MacBook. Stuff like that. This one has never really been "fun." I've liked learning more and more, but it's never been fun. Mostly because it's been constantly saturated with emotional whiplash of various sorts and from various sources.

The point is that my marriage has suffered because of the time investment. I want to read at every moment because to me, the sooner I get this done (just like every other project, remember?), the sooner I'll be able to put this all behind me and "start anew." It's been extremely hard to be patient because I hate limbo land about things and this is so fundamentally life-altering that keeping it suspended feels like I can't do anything with my life's direction until it's done. What's my moral system? Do I give money away or not? Should I pray every day? How should paint the picture of how the world works for my children -- with invisible forces or without? Things like that. Not being able to definitively answer whether or not Christianity is true makes these things tough. Half of the whole point is that if it's not true, I want to get cooking on "re-learning" about other areas of life and rebuilding myself (see, I've already got another hundred projects lined up and this isn't even done).

My wife would quite appreciate if I spent more time with her and my children. I want to do that, and more so absolutely recognize that I should do that... but I often don't. I get caught in that "last" article or "last" comment to post, etc. Before I realize it, it's 7:30p and it's time to put the 2 year old to sleep. I can half make up for my time lapse by snuggling her to sleep... but that's not good enough. Anyway, I think this is enough to describe both why it's like it is and also not leave too many questions as to why it would make things tough in a marriage.


--( No one is "Pro-Me" )--
One of the hardest things about deconverting when the last seven years of life have been completely invested in Christian living is that I am soooo alone/lonely/miserable. There's hardly anyone who relates with what I'm going through... at all. When I tried to pose a hypothetical situation to my men's group leader in which god didn't exist, he didn't even let me finish the sentence before informing me that "he couldn't" imagine that god didnt' exist. I pointed out that it was just an exercise and restarted the sentence and he cut me off again and said that he simply/literally "could not" imagine such a scenario. I was somewhat stumped at that point.

Many of the smiles have become slightly strained. Not in a malicious way, just in a way that reflects the fact that things are awkward and no one is quite sure what to do with me. Conversations skate around various subjects when I know that they really want to ask about my "quest." Eventually I'm proven right: "So... how's everything going?" or "Any progress?" Stuff like that. It's understandable, but difficult. It's probably difficult because I don't ever have anything to tell them that will make them happy. My "progress" has consistently been in the direction away from the faith, not toward it.

Which brings me to my catch-phrase: "pro-me." The hardest part about the friendships is that for quite a while I've had friends who somewhat admired my geekishness. They liked my little research projects, computer skills, etc. They love hearing about my exploits as a research engineer at an awesome company (what sanitized details I can reveal, anyway). This brings us to quite a clash in how we view the current situation. I see this as an extension of who I already was: curious, detail obsessed, persistent, researching, etc. They see it as me losing a part of me. That's damn hard to be told by your friends that you're not who you used to be when you think you are. My gripe is that it doesn't seem like anyone is "pro-me." As in, "Yes! Go for it. I encourage to you to use all of the [god-given] gifts you have and get to the bottom of this. I've always trusted you and know you just want to understand the world more accurately. I'm confident that you won't stop until you've satisfied what you think you need to know to move on." No, everyone would prefer that I would have never even touched this subject. Cameras, computers, bikes, and pyramid schemes were fine -- god is not.

So, to conclude this section. Bring this under the homestead roof. It's unbelievably difficult to feel like the quality of your relationships has deteriorated, you're being judged (mildly or more severely), that it's not okay to pursue what you want to know, etc... and have that also be the case with one's wife. The one place where I would really, really, really appreciate support is in my own house with my own wife. But she's "one of them" (I write that phrase with levity, not malice). We're completely on other sides of the canal on this one. She thinks I've abandoned her. I think she's stopped supporting me. She thinks I'm free to just "choose" to "come back to the faith" and I think she's wrong for thinking so. We both feel misunderstood. From my perspective, it's tough to have her in the class of people who are not "pro-me." I would love for her to be able to see what I'm doing and trust that it's a good thing and place whatever reliability on my answer to this question as she's put on my answers to the other questions I've really invested in answering.

This has all been to say that I think this "grudge" has kept us distanced. We just don't "rest in each other" like we used to. I don't really feel "at peace" with baring my heart to her and I'm sure she doesn't either. She feels like we've lost the spiritual/religious ground we used to share and I feel like she judges me unjustly, doesn't respect me, and doesn't trust that I'm just doing what I have to do. She's in the category of those who think I should never have embarked down this path. She's explicitly stated that she wishes I would have considered what I was getting into and simply stopped. That's frustrating as I don't think I had a choice and thus feel misunderstood.


--( I'm kind of an a-hole )--
Yes. I'll say it. I've "slipped" in a lot of ways and completely see it and acknowledge it. My stress level is high and I burn out. This makes me prone to want to "escape" into media, goofiness, or technology (like reinstalling my OS, encrypting my hard drive, etc.). My language is quite a bit worse than it used to be, and while I think some of that is legitimately that I don't really think there's a cosmic being judging me for it, I think some of it is simply due to a shorter fuse. I'm a lot more on edge and it makes me prone to take out my frustration with all of this on those around me, which typically means my wife. I'm more argumentative, more pouty, more sensitive, and more prone to lash out. This obviously hasn't helped the relationship.


--( Interactions )--
I'll wrap up by saying that our interactions are quite a mixed bag. There are a lot of reasonably good times, but an awful lot of hard discussions. She always wants me to go to the religious stuff I used to attend (Mass, praise and worship opportunities, etc.) and I don't. This gets us on the merry-go-round. "But I wish you would be there with me." "But I hate going to stuff like that; I feel like people are watching me during prayer time." "No they're not." "No, I'm pretty sure they are -- I've seen people staring at me during prayer time!" And so on...

Or about children. She wants to raise them Christian and I want to raise them "neutral" (if such a thing is possible). If she does teach them [about] religion, I want an equal say as well. But she doesn't want that. I don't even want to dogmatic. I think it would be as ridiculous to indoctrinate a child in religion as I do to indoctrinate them in atheism. I simply want them to be open to answer this question when they're old enough and curious enough to do so on their own time and don't think that injecting dogma into them at an early age helps that. In fact, I'm fairly convinced that no other occurrence makes one less able to try and be unbiased in the first place.

We have a lot of recurring discussions that often involve the phrase, "I wish you just..." That could be "believed," "understood me," "were open to doing x," etc. There's lots of things like this. Essentially, I think we're constantly revisiting the central issue which is that both of us feel alone, alienated, and misunderstood. I think we both think we're more of "the victim" as well which isn't helpful. Two victim-challengers fighting for the title. Not a healthy recipe.

Current Developments

Despite how horrid all of the above might sound... we actually have had a pretty darn good week. We had a fantastic conversation last week (or weekend) that really helped things out. I wish I could remember more of it. I think some of it simply occurred because of us both softening to one another. My wife was out of town the previous week at her parents' house. Some relatives were visiting from AZ and she went to spend the week with them while they were here. I think it gave some time for reflection and it was during that time that I made another pass at the current state of "advice" on unequally yoked relationships.

To get it out there straightforwardly: divorce has absolutely come up in discussion and entered both our minds at various points. I can't see how it wouldn't. At least on one occasion, I brought it up completely rationally: would my wife be happier were we to be apart? I really think it's something we needed to consider. While immediate pondering and reflex push one to say, "No," it's a valid question and deserves facing. If I put on my 10-years-in-the-future glasses, do I think one or both of us would be better off without this marriage? At the time, I wasn't even thinking about me. I just wondered if she had someone who was religious if she'd be happier down the road. She said no. That was that.

Kids also came up a lot in my reading during that week. I went out to several Minnesota Atheist Meetup events that week and some had asked about my marriage. I said that it was definitely not very joyous at the moment and that things were probably worse than the last time I talked with them about it. Kids came up and one thing that struck me was that separation wouldn't fix that issue. It'd still be an issue. Do we both "fight" to indoctrinate them? Agree to keep it "neutral"? Do something else? That'd remain. And that's probably one of the hardest facets of future-thinking. Given that, perhaps separation was a pointless thought-investment after-all.

Divorce/separation really hasn't come up all that much. I'm mainly getting it out on the table for the benefit of anyone else reading this. Talk about it. Lay it out there. Think it through. It's not like it won't creep in when things are hard anyway, so one might as well bring it in the light and think about it intentionally rather than letting any thoughts about divorce occur when emotions are running high and blood is boiling!

In any case, my wife came back and I think we had some kind of argument centering around me not being involved in our family life (like I wrote above) and for whatever reason I was inspired to try and mend things. I brought my computer upstairs to our bedroom and queued up Tony Bennett's rendition of "Just the Way You Look Tonight," the song for our first dance at our wedding, and waited until she came to bed. I brought her over to me, and started the song. We danced in our room at the foot of the bed with the newborn sleeping in the bassinet until the song was done and then talked for quite a while. I let her know that I still wanted to be a good man, reassuring her that even if I do come out on the side of non-belief, I don't have any intentions of becoming uncaring, mean, horrible, removed, etc. I still want to be a great father and husband. I acknowledged that I'm quite absorbed and need to change that. I also tried to promote her understanding why I tend to be absorbed -- I don't even feel like I can move forward with life until answering this. I know, it sounds ridiculous, but it is how it feels sometimes. I also tried to re-explain the loneliness and how I want her more than anyone to support me. That's especially true since I feel like I'm constantly "on guard" when I'm around our Christian circles and the last place I want to feel like that is at home. Anyway, I think sharing helped mend things quite a bit and led to a great week. I've been more involved with the kiddos, helpful around the house, and we've spent more time together. Good deal!

Reflections

I'll end what became a crazily long post with some reflections to try and add to the mix of the current takes on these situations. First off, I'll say that I think it's absolutely possible to make something like this work. It probably won't be very fun at many times, but does not to fall into the category of either "run to the hills" or "it works because my spouse doesn't actually care."

I won't advise running away and my wife emphatically does care!


--( Discussions )--
I would say that every conversation that has turned into an attack, debate, or guilt-placing-exercise has gone horribly. I think the success of our marriage is going to rely on not doing this... ever. Or at least as rarely as possible. Neither of us can see the other as being the source of the issue. She's not stupid/irrational/unjustified/ignorant for believing... and I'm not satan's-spawn/malicious/willfully-hating-of-religion/possessed/cruel for not believing. Make sense?

Neither of us are likely to convince the other and thus I don't think spouses should be the ones to debate each other... at least that's my present stance. Leave this to the books, countless web sites that are there for each to read, and others in one's life. I think our relationship will be healthier if she refrains from trying to convince me that it actually is my choice to disbelieve (where as I think it's not) and in me refraining from trying to convince her that her beliefs are false.


--( Who Wins? )--
My current reflection is that the only way to make something like this work is for the marriage to become a "lose-lose" situation. Let me develop this a bit. No one anticipates something like this. Both of us are hurting. Both of us wish the other came over to our side. Both of us think we're either more right or have been more heavily wronged. To put it bluntly, I'm fairly convinced at this point that we both have to give that (pardon) sh*t up.

We both have to lose, at which point the marriage, overall becomes win-win. The alternatives? She insists on raising our children Christian and me having no say. Or I insist that she doesn't even teach them about her faith while I only teach them secular/naturalist principles that can be established via science. Both of these are win-lose scenarios, but I hypothesize that these types of situations will actuall kill the marriage long term. I honestly don't know if I could stick around were I in a relationship where my spouse literally asked me to keep my mouth shut about something I put so much work into for no other reason than she believed in it. I equally don't expect she'd put up very well with me telling her to keep something extremely important to her completely to herself and to never speak of it.

This is a marriage which implies equality, at least in my mind. I paint this as a lose-lose necessity because I think we'll both have to drop down the bar of our ideal/how we imagined our marriage to make this work. But that's the cost of making things work in light of the current situation... which actually will make the marriage a win-win success.


--( Obstacles )--
I see several obstacles. I think maintaining communication and openness is probably the biggest. When we lose the ability to relate to the other in this, we deteriorate. This has to come from both sides. I've noticed that when she stops recalling that I did not choose to doubt and hints at this being willful on my part, I really get upset. She also is heavily affected when I leave out the obvious hardship she's enduring by having the Catholic man she chose stop being Catholic.

The "children issue" is far from done and I see my lose-lose solution threatened by an unfortunate tendency of my wife (and many other believers) to be overly influenced by authority for the sake of it being authority. She related that she was not sure what she'd do if she was "instructed" to carry out her promise to raise our children Catholic. It would put her in a tough spot; should she choose to do what seems best for our family and our relationship or what's best in the eyes of the Church? We were (and she still is) quite "dogmatic." We were not "pick and choose" Catholics. That will make it extremely hard if not impossible if a priest tells her that she will be "abandoning her Catholic duties" should she not raise her child explicitly Catholic and perhaps even demand that I keep to myself about it all. We'll have to see how this plays out.

Lastly, I think common ground could be a struggle. Everything we used to say was infused with god this and god that. I would talk about how I acted on "the Lord's word" at work or in life or how "god spoke" to me in my daily prayer time or present some reflection on how an area of our life reflected Jesus' teaching. Things like that. That's all gone now. My thoughts now are things like, "Wow, if the B theory of time really is correct, the whole Kalam Cosmological Argument fails. Fascinating!" First off, most people don't care about that to begin with. Secondly, the point is that most of my thoughts are atheistic in nature and just won't uplift my wife. It makes it challenging, because I love to share reflections and yet can't since they will either be uninteresting or angering! Rebuilding some common form of interests, intellectual focus, etc. will be a definite obstacle to overcome.

Conclusion

Wow! I never knew so much would come out on this. I hope to continue posting updates and further reflections/developments as thing progress. We're in a pretty darn good spot right now and I'm trying to understand why (though, that takes a back seat to simply keeping it this way!). We may look into seeing a recommended marriage counselor, though my research (hehe) indicates that they can be expensive. It might still be worth it, just sayin'. My primary focus right now is on keeping things "lose-lose" so that we maintain the peace and connection. As soon as one of us goes for the "win" in some way... I find that we lose the sense of common struggle, refuge in the other, and so on. Keeping those will make the actual hardship bearable rather than adding to it.

Custom Tyvek wallet tutorial/howto (3 of 3)

This is the final post of a 3 part series on making a Tyvek wallet. I'm biased, but happen to think that my design is the coolest, most compact, and innovative design out there!
- Part 1 covers the background (as in, "Why would you do this?")
- Part 2 covers the bulk of the fabrication
- This post completes the finishing touches!
---

Okay. When we left off, things were pretty well clear. The pockets were all formed. Now we just have to do three more things to finish off the wallet. Recall that the wallet is a product of two folds which means there are four layers of Tyvek. Remember how the very back sheet was left a little taller than the rest? We're going to fold and glue that down to create a nice smooth edge for the back of the wallet. Fold it down over the body of the wallet and crease it. You should then have this:


Now put some glue on that flap and fold it down. While it could have been cut off, this will create a smoother edge that's easier to handle when you're trying to slip stuff into the wallet. I'm imagining that it will be a bit more tear resistant as well than if it were a "naked" thin edge floating in space.

Update 8/2011: I would actually not do the below as described. I left it as written, but have since started "reversing" the instructions. In other words, leave the back layer as is, and cut the other three a bit shorter so that the back can be folded over all layers in front of it and glued to the front of the wallet. This way, the flaps are on the inside (which is folded up) rather than on the outside where they are prone to rubbing on pockets and getting pulled apart.

This next part is a little tricky. We're going to cut the side edges of three of the layers on both sides a little, while leaving the very front layer as-is. This way, we can put some glue on the "flap" we create, wrap it all the way around, and glue it to the very back of the wallet to hold it together. I unfolded the back two sheets and cut them 3/8" shorter. Then I slipped a gift card I didn't care about in between the front two sheets and cut only the back one 3/8". Here's what it looked like when the cut was done:


I did that to each side and then folded/creased both of the resultant flaps toward the back of the wallet. Then I unfolded each, applied glue, and then re-folded them back to close off both sides of the wallet. Here's the folding of the flap to the back of the wallet (you're seeing the back of the wallet up and the front flap reaching around):


And that's that! The wallet is done. Here's the show-off finished shots one more time:





I made my first one with double sided tape about three months ago (everywhere you glued I used strips of double sided tape) and it's held up quite nicely. I recently made myself a glued version but haven't started using it yet. I have been quite pleased. After making 8 of these (3 previous designs I don't like, my current wallet, and 4 of the new/glued versions), I can make one in about 15min. I eyeball most of the "flaps," use a credit card to get the height right, and have been measuring out the width to 7-3/4 with a ruler. Who knows how long the wallet will last, but I figure that 15min every 3mos or so will do!

Hope you enjoyed the series.

Saw Shermer and Avalos... both in one week!

Boy was last week something special. Both Michael Shermer and Hector Avalos came to Minnesota! I had the privilege of listening to them both speak; Shermer at the University of Minnesota, hosted by the Campus Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists (CASH) student group, and Avalos at a local library, hosted by the Minnesota Atheists. Here's a quick summary and some thoughts on each.

Dr. Michael Shermer | Why People Believe Weird Things
I've seen Dr. Shermer's TED talk on this topic, so I had a reasonable idea on what he'd be addressing. It was quite entertaining, not too heavy, but also filled with at least a few morsels I found fascinating. My highlights:

--( Type I and Type II Errors )--
In discussing the human tendency to perceive patterns, Shermer laid out two possible errors: a Type I error occurs when one sees a pattern and there is none; a Type II error occurs when there is a pattern and one misses it. He gave an example of prehistoric man hearing a rustle in the tall grass. A Type I error would be to assume a "pattern" in the form of a predator when it was really just the wind. A Type II error would be to assume it was the wind when it really was a predator. Then he pointed out the cost of each error. Type I errors (at least of this type) are extremely low cost. One burns a little oxygen and ATP while running away and looks over a shoulder to note that nothing is pursuing. No big deal. A Type II error, however, would be extremely costly... you're lunch.

Shermer suggested, then, that from an evolutionary standpoint, humans have developed what he calls patternicity, the tendency to see non-existent patterns. It has been more advantageous for us to recognize signs of order, intent, meaning, etc. than it has for us to ignore such observations as mere random noise. I'll have to spend some more time contemplating ways in which assuming a pattern would be more costly to see if his thesis makes sense. One person pointed out that such a tendency could be manipulated, though. A predator could scare a human into running right into the jowls of a planned ambush. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't still be more advantageous to run in the majority of circumstances. Anyway, I'm still digesting this theory, but it made sense at the talk.

--( Consequences/Byproducts )--
An interesting consequence of this Type I error leaning is more obviously our gullibility and perhaps overestimation of the value of anecdotal evidence, but more interestingly our tendency to "count the hits and forget the misses." Shermer brought up a study he did with Skeptic Magazine in which they looked at Tarot card readers, palm readers, and the like. They'd send someone in and observe from a private viewing area. Shermer would count the total number of "proposals" (leading questions, guesses, assertions, etc.) made by the reader while also counting the number of correct proposals (ones that aligned with something significant with the subject's life).

His team found that between 200-300 stabs-in-the-dark might be made during anyone session and perhaps 6-7 of them might be "hits." Most strikingly, in discussing the session with the Skeptic Magazine team afterwards, the subjects would be amazed by how much the reader knew about them or was able to predict. Even when confronted by letting them know that the session was a setup, the subjects would continue to hold that it was simply unreal that the reader was able to tell them about x, y, and z. We develop a sort of blind-spot to counter evidence in our desire to see a pattern where none exists.


--( None are Immune )--
Shermer pointed out that studies have shown that so called "skeptics" or "rationalists" can be equally susceptible to bunk beliefs, especially when rewarded for believing them. A STUDY found that when shown random noise briefly and asked if it contained a word or a face, skeptics were far more swayed when provided with L-dopa to increase dopamine levels than believers. Sure, there might not be dopamine floating around quite this predictably in real life, but Shermer thought it was interesting. His theory, which not everyone seemed to believe (me included) was that if the "ceiling" (believing everything) is y beliefs high, believers are already closer to it, while skeptics are a priori lower and thus are more susceptible to lessening their distance to that ceiling. I dunno about that one but it's still interesting.

He did comment that even non-believers in certain things (say, religion) for rational reasons may be completely irrational in many other areas. Essentially, his covering of this topic was simply to issue the warning that none are immune and that we shouldn't consider ourselves removed from the chance of being blind to evidence or seeing patterns where non exist (or vice versa).


Dr. Hector Avalos | From Darwin to Hitler: How Creationists Revise History
This talk was simply fascinating. Since beginning my quest, I've definitely run into Avalos a reasonable amount. His book, The End of Biblical Studies and contributions to The Christian Delusion, edited by John Loftus, have come up quite a lot as well as various posts of his at Debunking Christianity.

In this talk, Avalos discussed how Darwin[ism] has been used a cause of the holocaust. He said that it is a recent ploy of Creationists that without the theory of evolution having been put forth in Origin of the Species in 1859, the eugenic ideology of the holocaust would never have come about. Avalos put forth as his thesis that this was not the case, and wished to support it by showing that eugenic tendencies and practices were in existence prior to 1859. If he could show this, clearly Darwin could not have been responsible, or at least solely so, for the holocaust.

Avalos spanned the centuries, citing various "purgings" of Jews throughout history as well as Luther's seven point plan for the Jews, stating that every single point had been used by Hitler. Following illustrating quite clearly from acts in history as well as in using quotes from Mein Kampf he launched a more offensive attack, stating that Hitler clearly believed that he was doing god's will in building up a superior race and eliminating the Jews.

The Q&A that followed was quite lively and all-encompassing. Two questions (one asked by me) tried to get at what possible evidence might exist for leveling the claim that Hitler was an atheist. Avalos pulled up a [hidden] slide on a work known as Table Talk, often used by apologists to reveal what Hitler really thought. Avalos stated that no original manuscript from the pen of Hitler exists on such a work, those who have documented such a series of dialogs have contradicted others who have done the same, and thus there is no substantial reason to give heed to this reference. As far as he's concerned, Mein Kampf is what Hitler thought and believed, it was from his one pen, and we know its authenticity well. Table Talk as a reference for what Hitler "really" thought and said is, according to Avalos, not reliable.

One other tidbit that came up in Q&A was how Avalos became an atheist. It was awesome to hear. He was born in Mexico and moved here to keep his grandmother company while she worked as a live-in nanny. He wanted to be an evangelist and realized that he would have to be a scripture scholar to do so. This meant learning Hebrew and Greek. They were too poor for him to go to the Jewish school he wanted to attend, so instead he just asked others what he needed to learn Hebrew. He was told that all he really needed was a Hebrew Bible, Hebrew <-> English dictionary, and a book of Hebrew grammar. He mowed lawns and saved up enough for those books and taught himself Hebrew! In the midst of studying the Bible, he became an atheist (though I don't recall at what age...). If I recall correctly, he began his self-Hebrew instruction in quite early teens (13-14). Quite neat to hear that story.

The divisiveness of belief... what gives?

I had breakfast with a tremendous friend this morning. He's a believer and probably about my dad's age. We've been friends for quite a while and I just couldn't say enough great things about him. He's one of the few who seems to understand me and be quite supportive even though we differ on our current religious beliefs. I had a great time catching up.

During the course of the conversation, he brought up a few times how hard this is on my wife. I completely agree. For her, she feels like she's lost part of the "me" I was when I married her. I can totally understand that. Another big fault of mine is getting too sucked into "the quest" for an answer. I have definitely lost some of my levity, dedication to spending time with her/the family, etc. while in pursuit of all this. It's completely engrossing and my personality tends to not want to rest until I've researched to my satisfaction. With a foundational area like this... it can be rather paralyzing because I almost feel like I need to "figure it all out" before I can even start rebuilding my world view. This makes almost anything other than working toward "figuring it out" difficult to invest in.

In any way, I was quite struck by his statement that for my wife and others, it's difficult/awkward to be in a relationship with me because it's like half of what they liked about me is now missing. I think he may have even used the analogy that it's like relating to a "me" that's lost half his body.

While I understood what he was getting at (and I really think believers who now know someone in non-belief really do view it like this), I hate that it's like this. It's probably a hypocritical hatred for this, since I would have probably done the same thing were I still a believer and one of my friends in my shoes.

What bothers me and actually pains me in my quest is the fact that to me I haven't actually changed. As was excellently put at Think and Wonder, Wonder and Think, doubters tend to be analytical, persistent-thinking types. The curious figurer-outers. I'm plagued and can admit that. I can't remember the last time I didn't have some crazy project going on, always thinking that when that one is done I'll finally be able to just relax. But then I get curious about something else and am plagued with obsession all over again. Anyway, back to the point: from my vantage point I've just kept doing what I've done all my life. No one complained when I was figuring out the best digital SLR, mini-van, or road bike to buy for the dollar. No one complains when I document the math behind multilevel-marketing schemes. No one complains when I try and get a handle on the best talk plan for the buck. Or when I took my entire road bike apart just to do it (I had just purchased it from Craigslist and literally did not ride it until I had disassembled everything, cleaned, greased, and reassembled). In fact, many love it and (not to be self-flattering) admire me for it. Heck, I even get random requests for advice on stuff like this.

But what, exactly, is The Quest? It's just doing what I've always done... but with religion. Now it's a problem. Now "half of me is gone." I get it (like I said above)... but at the same time, I just don't. My nature is to research the daylights out of a topic until I'm satisfied with what I know. When there's a decision (especially an important one) at stake, this effect is often magnified tremendously. Why am I being faulted or viewed differently or with pain or awkwardness because when I was 25 I suddenly realized that I never had an intellectual foundation to my belief? And why fault me for coming to the best conclusion I can about the matter? So far, that's to not believe. I don't think there's enough evidence to justify belief in all sorts of aspects of Christianity. In fact, I think there's several tremendous road blocks that have not been explained sufficiently for me to accept that they aren't really road blocks.

Is this significantly different than saying, "After careful review and research, I don't think there's sufficient evidence to shed a good light on that multi-level marketing program you pitched to me. In fact, my study shows that it's unbelievably unfair to those at the bottom of the pyramid"?

My complaint is that my method, who I am, and how I approach things has emphatically not changed; all that's "changed" is that a sensitive subject matter became the target of my obsessive analysis and hasn't fared well. To suddenly decide that because of my stance on this topic (as opposed to any other) means that half of me is gone feels like I'm wearing a t-shirt with a bunch of buttons/labels pinned to my shirt. No one cares about me, just my shirt. While I'm the same under the shirt, that one button I removed was a deal-breaker for a bunch of close friends. Sorry to say it, but I think if that's the case, it sucks.


P.S. I think there's a temptation to label non-believers as simply "stubborn" or "hard hearted" or even simply state that they're not open minded to any change. I heartily disagree. For one, the fact that I have persisted in this "adventure" this long shows me that I'm quite open to change. To not be would have kept me attempting to be willfully ignorant just to stay in comfy in my circles of belief.

Secondly, until quite recently, I was actually anti-vaccine. That's right. I was one of the conspiracy theorists and sought out stories and evidence to show that vaccines were unsafe, untested, unverified, and potentially linked to autism. My eldest was never vaccinated. Then I saw this TED talk by Michael Specter who simply said (paraphrased), "Everyon is entitled to their own beliefs, but you know what? You're not entitled to your own facts." Then he cited the list of countries who tested the autism-vaccine connection after the initial scare and reported that there was no correlation. That's really all that finally did it for me. I constantly assumed that the pharma-government intertwined nature of the US made it difficult to trust the CDC on matters like this. But hearing Michael's list of countries participating in the study just made it click. "Maybe I've been wrong!?!" I thought. My daughter has begun the catch-up process. We're still taking it slower than the recommended speed just to give her body time to recuperate between doses, but she's being immunized. Anyway, I think this is a divisive topic, especially if you run into someone like I used to be: vehemently paranoid about government and their interest in our well-being!

Just thought I'd share that anecdote as a nice one-data-point source of information about my ability to change my mind. I was pretty happy with myself and I think it at least goes a little ways to combat those who would hurl accusations of inability to change my way.

Custom Tyvek wallet tutorial/howto (2 of 3)

This is part 2 of a 3 part series on making a Tyvek wallet. I'm biased, but happen to think that my design is the coolest, most compact, and innovative design out there!
- Part 1 covers the background (as in, "Why would you do this?")
- This post covers the bulk of the fabrication
- Part 3 completes the finishing touches!
---

First, the obligatory materials spread:


Update 8/2011: The adhesive shown really wasn't great for this. I have since used two part epoxy with fantastic results. I'd recommend that for anyone following these instructions.

First, fold the Tyvek in half:


This will produce a creased edge on one side and two loose edges on the other. Fold the creased edge up so that it just covers a credit card (by 1/16"-1/8"):


As you can see, now I'll be calling one half the "creased half" and the other the "loose ends half." For clarity, let me describe the current "anatomy" of the sheets:
- Front: refers to the creased half since this will be the front/inside of the wallet when finished
- Back: refers to the loose ends half since that will form the back/outside of the wallet when finished
- Each "half" has two sheets; our two folds have now created four individual portions of Tyvek

Currently, there are two loose edges in the loose ends half and we want to trim the front-most one flush with the top of the creased half, leaving only the very back of those pieces. When we're done, then, you'll have the creased half with an equal-height sheet behind it and one tall piece in the very back. First fold that front-most sheet down over the creased half to mark your cutting line:


Now, unfold the whole thing and cut that piece off along the crease you just made. Use a ruler/straightedge!


Now you're going to cut the very back piece so that it's 1/4-3/8" taller than the other three pieces (counting the "creased half" as two). When we're all done, this sheet will fold over to create a nice back edge (you'll see). Use a ruler and measure 3/8" from the top of the creased half on both sides, align the ruler with both of the tick marks and then cut along it. Here's me measuring:


---
Note: I will use the 1/4-3/8" size range a lot; you may be upset that I'm not more specific. I have now made three of these and will say that I prefer a 1/4" spacing but 3/8" flaps. It was hard for me to glue the smaller thickness flaps, but I also liked the tighter spacing as it made the wallet a little more "solid" when I was done. If you have a lot of cards or carry a lot of bills/receipts, you may want to go for the 3/8" spacing as well... up to you. You may just admit on the early side that you'll probably make one of these, learn from the process and make another one that you like better. That's what I did... except I made like four to even get the design right and only after making 3 of the same exact thing am I pretty happy with the last one :)
---

Okay. Status check. What you have should look like this now: creased "loop" in front, and then a sheet of equal height behind it with a slightly taller sheet in the very back:


Now we're going to cut to width. There's the hard way (how I first did it) in which you lay out three credit cards so that they're all about 1/4-3/8" apart and then cut 1/4-3/8" on either side of them. Here's the layout step:


The easy way, shown after the cut is to just cut the whole thing to 7-1/2 - 7-3/4" wide, as that's what it comes out to be. The end result of that cut:


Now it gets quite interesting; what follows was my shining innovation. We're going to cut two slits for the side credit card slots. You want the cut to allow the credit card to poke out of the pocket but we also need to leave enough for a flap on the edge to seal this whole thing off (you'll see) when we're done so just take my word and cut a slit 2-1/4" from the edge on each side only on the very front of the creased edge. Just look at the next couple pictures before actually cutting to make sure you've to it. Here's me measuring 2-1/4" in from the edge:


And here's after the cut. Note that I unfolded the whole thing and only cut through one sheet of Tyvek.


Do the same on the other side and the cut through the top edge so that you actually have a loose flap as shown below. If you're confused about which edge to cut, refold the wallet and cut the top crease of the creased half (the crease that is on the side with the loose edges of the loose half not the edge where all four sheets are creased together).


Here's another view if that was confusing:


Now fold that flap down where it used to be and put a card right in the middle of it. On the bottom edge where it's attached, draw two lines, each 1/16" from the edge of the card, like this:


Now cut from the outer edge of the flap to the line you just drew along the crease where it's attached. Here I've unfolded the flap and am holding up the edge so you can see the cut I'm talking about. Do that on both sides.


Now put a credit card under the flap and fold the top of the flap down so that you can see the credit card. This will form the top edge of the middle card slot. It doesn't really matter which way you fold the edge, but it will look better folded back (toward the loose edge half):


Now fold the flap back out, put the credit card in the middle, and fold two flaps inward to "hug" the card. Fold the flaps so that the crease intersects the two little cuts you made just a bit ago:


Now, make two cuts as shown here:


Now you're going to glue the top fold you made to the main "body" of the flap. It's finally time to get out the glue! My recommendation is to put a dab on a work surface like this:


And then use a q-tip or something else to apply the glue so that you only get a thin coating where you want it. Since we're gluing flat surfaces (no "texture" for the glue to absorb or be pushed into), it won't take much at all to create oozing at the edges... In any case, dab a q-tip and glue the flap like this:


Notice the little "ears" that are shown above. When taking these pictures, I goofed. You don't actually need those ears. Cut them off. If you're reading ahead, go ahead and cut them off now even if you haven't glued the flap yet. Now we're going to glue the side folds you made to the main body of the wallet. Apply the glue (make sure it's to the right side of the flaps!) like so:


While the glue is still wet, quickly fold the flap back onto the wallet and hold it down firmly. If you have any doubt about excess, slide a card you don't care about into the pocket created and keep sliding it in and out to make sure glue isn't latching onto to it. Do this until you're reasonably sure the glue is dry (you don't want your credit card slot glued shut!).

When you're done, you should have this:



I'm sure you can see how this is going to turn out by now! Isn't it exciting to see that nebulous sheet of paper coming into wallet-ness?

To finish this off, go to Part 3!

Custom Tyvek wallet tutorial/howto (1 of 3)

This is part 1 of a 3 part series on making a Tyvek wallet. I'm biased, but happen to think that my design is the coolest, most compact, and innovative design out there!
- This post covers the background (as in, "Why would you do this?")
- Part 2 covers the bulk of the fabrication
- Part 3 completes the finishing touches!
---

I'm really filling out my blog nicely. While some followers (if and when they exist) might be bummed by the inconsistent subject matter, I really wanted this blog to represent me, and let's face it: I'm a diverse pile of oddity. So here's a post on a Tyvek wallet design I created a few months ago.

The finished product:





Background
The idea for some type of thin wallet began shortly after starting to work for my present employer. Everyone there over 40 or so has at some point made notice that carrying a wallet in a back pocket is a bad idea. I have carried a leather wallet in my back right pocket since middle school/high school days and was quite intrigued to hear this come out of the mouths of about 5 different individuals. I believed them -- they have the chiropractic bills to prove it!

In any case, apparently it's jut not good on one's back to sit lopsided all day long. Fair enough. Most of them migrated to some type of money clip or thinner leather front pocket thingy. I (not surprisingly to myself, at least) wanted to make a wallet. I'd see some DIY wallets at Instructables in the past and so I had some ideas about what designs were out there. I'd seen all kinds of things like making a wallet from a bike tire, paper, Tyvek, and, of course, duct tape.

Initially I was sold on the duct tape idea, but something intrigued me more about Tyvek. It's extremely durable, won't tear, is water proof (they use it to wrap house frames during building) and is just the lightest/thinnest stuff you can imagine. I chose the Tyvek idea and stuck with it. I happen to have access to Tyvek via a small sample roll in the research lab I work in. I cut off a bunch and played around with many, many designs. I finally figured out my favorite, and that's the one I want to present.


Rival Designs
Searching Instructables, YouTube, or just googling around reveals that there are a lot of designs out there. I'll say that the Dynomighty wallet is definitely the most popular or well known. It is pretty cool and the designer is pretty fantastic for figuring out how to make a wallet from one envelope with nothing left over and quite minimal cutting. I love that the last step is pulling the strip from the adhesive flap and using that to seal everything nice and tight.

This design on Instructables was also quite inspiring. I liked the small footprint quite a lot. It seemed like quite the innovative use of those individual sleeves as well as the cutting of "access points" to allow for sliding the cards.

I wanted to combine some from both (and others) as well as my own flair. I definitely wanted a tri-fold wallet. Check out these two pictures to see why:

Bi-fold


Tri-fold


Not only does the tri-fold design have the advantage of requiring a smaller footprint, but with a thin material like Tyvek, any area not backed by a card of some sort is going to be floppy/flimsy. In other words, the cards will be solid but the top of that bi-fold wallet that's required for housing dollar bills is going to be completely flexible/bendy. I don't like that. While I think the Dynomighty is pretty darn cool -- I would not want it. It's bigger than it needs to be (for me, at least) and is going to be floppy at the top.

Want more? Go to Part 2 and let's build this thing!

Masked metrics

I was recently upset in a conversation with a close friend. In an email exchange, she invited me to a faith-based event commenting that,

"Like I said before, you could use this as an opportunity to give your time/yourself over to the Lord with expectant faith. Just because you have turned away doesn't mean you can't turn back."

Well, not that big of a deal, but it gets to me that no one in my circle of friends (who are all believers) seems to get my position. I feel that they constantly assume that belief is just like standing in front of a fork in the road and being able to just choose whichever path one chooses. They view it like this from the point of view of the path they think is the obviously correct one. My experience is far different, though. The more I learned, the most faith just... left. I didn't have to choose much at all. It was like saying you're choosing to believe the sky is blue. Really? Or is the stance you have on that issue simply a matter of your definition of blue and your visual input?

Anyway, I offered my response:

You can "turn back" by doing a u-turn and go back home. You cannot "turn back" to a non-evidentially supported stance when you... don't have the evidence required. Trying to talk to Jesus "internally" will do nothing for my lack of satisfaction with the state of the evidence.

In any case, we discussed this further and the conversation made me want to post about it. The best phrase I could come up with for my thoughts was, "masked metrics." What do I mean? Well, in the course of the conversation (and in part of the email dialog I didn't post) she stated that I would never have the evidence I wanted and thus my only option was to simply choose to believe. In talking about the event (which I did not attend), she stated that it was a great reminder to her about why she's glad to have god in her life, that it was reinvigorating, and so on. I prodded a little and asked what she meant, exactly.

I listened patiently for quite some time but would say that I heard little more than "fluffery." In other words, none of the descriptions, reasons, etc. were irreducible. Let me illustrate by paraphrasing some tidbits to the best of my recollection (I'll be speaking in first person as if I were her):

• It just reminded me about how my life had no purpose or meaning before and now that I know the lord, I have that
• When I look at my friends who don't know the lord, they're just not happy. They're pursuing things that don't last and just aren't satisfied
• I want to live for god so that I can live a consistently good life in order to inspire my family and friends
• I want to be a light to others for god
• I want to show for the love of Christ

Anyway, you get the point. It was essentially a mix of a) why she believes certain observations support god being observably present in her life and b) why her belief/the event/these occurrences make her want others to believe (and how she wishes to go about this). These types of statements went on for a reasonable amount of time and what struck me was that none of them really said anything of descriptive worth. Sure, they were descriptions of how this friend sees life, but they weren't irreducibly descriptive.

Take the example of "being a light" or "living a consistently good life." What does this mean? As far as I can tell, it's really appealing to a hidden social metric. When one says, "I want to be a light of Christ for the world," they're actually saying, "I want to conduct myself in such a way that others are so surprised by my surpassing fulfillment of socially desirable/admirable characteristics that they don't think such actions can be explained naturally. That's when I'll reveal that it's because Jesus reigns inside me that such sustained actions are possible."

So the phrases that come out actually have this transparent film of superimposed "fluff" that references god, Jesus, god's spirit living inside, being a light, being a witness, leading others to Christ, and so on... but when you keep asking, "Okay, so what would that look like?" you end up with (again, as far as I can tell) a description of being a really, really, really, really good person (as defined by some social standards) and then saying that the only way such a being is possible is with divine help.


Issues
There are a couple of big issues with this reasoning aside from the point that it's adding meaningless description on top of the real point of the statements...

1) It allows for any admired person to point to their amazing source x as the cause of such admiration
--- Scientologists, Mormons, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. are all equally justified in pointing to their deity/way of life as the reason that they are so admired by their community/the world.

2) It opens one's theory up for falsifiability, which as far as I can tell with religion is extremely undesirable
--- By this, I mean that all it takes is a handful of atheists, agnostics, non-believers, etc. to "radiate" the same aura as believers for the entire basis for believing to be undercut.

I'm not sure where else I'm going with this... mainly I just thought the phrase was interesting and could be helpful to others. I found that in listening, all of the phrases could ultimately be reduced to saying something else that did not necessarily require god to be a component in their observation as my friend thought. "Radiate the love of Christ to the world" ends up meaning that I do a lot of nice things for others, show concern, write them nice emails/notes, have them over for dinner, and so on.

These "painted up phrases" ultimately derive their entire meaning from non-religious ways of thinking and "rating" human behavior, activity, and character. No one has really defined "being Christ-like" in a way that is unique from borrowing concepts like being unselfishly sacrificial, generous, etc. from the secular vernacular.

These thoughts were helpful for me, but add a bit to my frustration. If we're not using the language the same or saying what we mean... it just makes dialog somewhat pointless. If we both talk about love being defined as intervening against evil, give an analogy of a person not using the means he has available to prevent an undesirable occurrence and say that this would be evil (and agree), and then shift to god only to have an objection raised that "all definitions of love fall apart when applied to god"... what the heck are we talking about? Let's strip away the superimposed layers of fluff, examine the actual content and meaning, and be done with it.

My take is that most of these swoon-creating, lofty, revered, mesmerizing phrases are just masks for what's really being said. I don't see many people trying to think their way through the mask to see the underlying metric actually being used. Instead they just seem to be satisfied with how awesome the phrase sounds and then decide to pray every morning to "be a light for the whole wide world which is engulfed in the darkness of evil, death, and sin" and so on... but have no idea what they're actually praying to do. It's just inspiring and sounds great in terms of having a "life mission."


P.S. I think some surely do think about how to translate these phrases into specific actions. I would imagine that a lot of believers are nevertheless more inspired by the masked phrase as opposed to just putting it into plain english for the rest of us.

Hey -- I'm still breathing!

Just wanted to post something so that it looks like I'm still alive. What have I been up to? A ton. I have disappeared off the face of the earth for about a month now and wanted to get back in the swing of things. So, what's happened?

2nd Daughter Born!
This was a big reason for my disappearance. My daughter, Leona, was born on Aug 29th, 2010. That's had me quite busy. I was able to take a full week off of work which was great. She's doing quite well and so is mommy :) Here's the day-1 pic:




Freaking tired
This happened to me in the first few months of The Quest as well. I took off sprinting and devouring all the information I could. I burned out somewhere in the April/May timeframe, I believe, (about 4-5mos into the quest) and did nothing related to god, religion, and the like. This happened recently as well. I really pushed to get through books by D'Souza and Dubay and then slowed down to almost a halt. I've had Jesus, Interrupted by Ehrman on loan from the library for some 6 weeks now and am not further than the first few chapters. This just gets exhausting for me.

I think I'm about ready to rock again, so look out world!


Cell phones!
My wife dropped her cell phone and it broke. We've been month-to-month for a while and thus could "re-up" with Verizon and all get new phones. Before jumping in, I took a step back, however, and used the opportunity to research cell phone plans and try and figure out what made the most sense. I had never done this and found it fascinating. Originally I was looking into adding a 5th friend onto my existing plan and couldn't believe that once I did the math... it wasn't saving him any money. "How in the world could joining a family plan not save money?", I thought. Well, the best way to understand the data is often via visual representation. See the following:



What you see there are the two individual plans offered by Sprint, Verizon, and AT&T on the far left (450 and 900min plans). The dotted horizontal lines serve as a reference for how the per-minute pricing of family plans compares. The answer? Horribly! That's right: you are far better off sticking with an individual plan if you actually use at least 450-900min. To see this, note that you need to get on at least a 1400min plan to have a hope of saving any money. The true gold is getting on a 2000min plan and buying only the minutes you need. If you can round up a group who will use all those minutes every month... you're doing the best you can do.

I plan to make a second plot to show where it might make sense for someone to pay a higher per-minute price for less minutes and still save since even a better rate on 450/900min will cost you if you're not in need of that many minutes.

In any case, that has been a fun project and has made me more knowledgeable about cell phone plans than ever before. I plan to make similar plots for texting, data, and both services as well. I hope that will serve as a nice reference for some hunting decision maker down the road.


Gnuplot + Org-mode + Babel + Beamer + TikZ
Remember my post on The Fall? I used gnuplot to make those graphs (as well as the cell phone chart above). I took what I learned in the course of that work and wrote up a tutorial on the Org-mode wiki site to help others. It's HERE. I have to say, it's neat to see one's work out and accessible for others.

I also wrote my own template for LaTeX Beamer, a class in LaTeX that allows for creating PDF presentations that look amazing. For a refresher on what LaTeX can do, see my analysis of Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing which can be downloaded HERE; it was written in LaTeX. In any case, my template matches the default template for my company pretty darn well, so I can now use it for work presentations!

I've also dug into TikZ which is just unbelievable. See THIS for some incredible examples. It's been a lot of fun finding all these fantastic tools out there.


Odds and Ends
- My first daughter turned 2!
- I've been learning a ton about disk encryption and logical volume management in preparation for a reinstall I'm planning on my MacBook. I plan to blog through the process as it will be quite different than my current setup!
- I had a brief love affair with Rockbox which I may write about at some future date and very well may go back to it down the road. It's quite nice not to be tied to iTunes for music management/syncing with my iPod.
- I've been keeping up with my typical blogroll: Daylight Atheism, Common Sense Atheism, Debunking Christianity, Unequally-Yoked, Overcoming Bias, Think and Wonder, Wonder and Think, Arizona Atheist, and LessWrong Wiki.
--- I've particularly enjoyed posts at Think and Wonder; she is very similar to me in mentality and status in "the quest"
--- I've also loved Luke's latest posts at Common Sense Atheism about time, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and Good and Real by Drescher


Closing
Okay, there's some updates. Stay tuned. I hope to get back in the mix shortly!