Agnosticism understood, or why I’m not an atheist

Do you know what the difference between atheism and agnosticism is? It’s pretty simple. Atheists say, “There is no god,” while agnostics say, “I don’t know it there’s a god.” A simple look at the etymology of the two words can help. Atheist is basically Greek for ‘having no god’. Agnostic is basically Greek for ‘having no knowledge’.

Atheism has become the default ‘religion’ for people who don’t believe in Jehovah, Vishnu, Allah, Waheguru, baby Jesus, Santa Claus, or Xenu, and I can definitely see where they’re coming from. It’s pretty easy to step a little too far and say, “These religions are preposterous fairy tales. Clearly they are all wrong and there is no god.” But remember, the opposite of something wrong is not always right.

I see atheism as something reactionary, whereas agnosticism is born out of true critical thought. Socrates once said, “I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.” This is the tenet upon which agnosticism is built. The fact is that our ignorance is a universe unto itself, and it takes a good deal of critical though to understand this.

What’s so great about Wikipedia?

I hear a lot of people say that Wikipedia is a disreputable source of information because anyone can edit articles. Most of these people who distrust Wikipedia do so because an equally uninformed friend told them they should. Yes, vandalism on Wikipedia is a problem, but is not a major problem like some alarmists would have you believe.

The truth is that Wikipedia is a masterpiece of collaborative work and knowledge. Almost all articles are written by experts. It contains an incredible amount of information in an easily accessible and traversable format. It is free knowledge. It is a triumph of truth over profiteering and is a vanguard of positive change in the information revolution.

If 1% of Wikipedia contributors are vandals the other 99% are the good people who share knowledge and fix mistakes. Most contributors are just know-it-all nerds who want to share their knowledge with other people and make the world a better-informed place. I should know, I’m one of them. Mistakes and vandalism are fixed promptly as broken windows are in any decent area of town, because Wikipedia isn’t a slum — it’s a university.

In related news, the information revolution is underway.  Videos about the evolving nature of information after the jump:

A fast, easy, healthy, cheap, delicious snack: avocado.

I love avocados. I get them for about 75c each and they’re healthy and delicious. I use my unbelievably fast and simple avocado recipe when I want a rich and satisfying snack without harming my body and self-respect with potato chips or cookies.

All you need is an avocado, salt, and lime juice. Cut the avocado in half and remove the seed. See the little divot in each half where the seed was? Squirt some lime juice in there. Now add salt to taste and you’re ready to eat it right out of the skin with a spoon. You can help the lime juice mix with the avocado by making a criss-cross of cuts in the avocado flesh. A little flavor irrigation system.

I like to have a couple of avocados ripening in the fruit bowl. Then, when the time is right, I strike. All the savory satisfaction from saturated fats with none of the heart disease, pudgy belly, or self-loathing.

Our high-dimensional world

According to our primitive senses, we live in a 4-dimensional world. Three of these are spatial dimensions — if we look at a cardboard box, or a desk, or a fridge, we can see that it has height, depth, and width. The fourth dimension that we perceive is time, and it’s no small feat to truly get that time is a dimension just like height, depth, and width.

Now imagine somebody who just couldn’t comprehend that there are more than two dimensions (if it makes it more plausible, let’s say this person has no depth perception and cannot move their head in any way). They argue, “I can see left and right, that’s the first dimension, and I can see up and down, that’s the second dimension.” You try to explain the concept of depth, and they don’t understand. You try to explain the concept of time as a dimension, and they really don’t understand. Don’t even start about relativity theory because you don’t even understand that, so how on earth could they? They see life in this world like we see a photograph. Unchanging. Flat. An accurate but unliving, unenlightened representation.

But we’re not so enlightened ourselves, seeing the world in all its four-dimensional grandeur. Our prophets (physicists) have spoken with god (the universe) and apparently there are likely between 10 and 26 dimensions. Life as we know it is a flat representation of reality. A photograph. An unliving snapshot. We live in this universe and we cannot even begin to fathom the lush and vivid truth.