Religious differences as a deal-breaker for a friendship

Can those who believe in God be good friends with those who don’t believe in God?

A fellow named Martin raised this intriguing point about a week ago here.  He suggested that a person who doesn’t believe in God cannot possibly have a real friendship, a deep friendship, with someone who claims to believe in God.  As I understood Martin’s point it’s absurd to claim a belief in God; it’s so incredibly absurd that a nonbeliever cannot ever fully trust a believer. In Martin’s view, in order to be true friends, believers need to quit saying those absurd claims about miracles and invisible Beings.  And those believers need to stop claiming that they know things that they don’t know.   According to Martin, it’s simply not worth it to try to maintain a friendship with people who claim to believe in gods and angels.  The craziness exhibited by believers (regardless of all of their other redeeming social values) is a huge roadblock even the possibility of friendship.

I think I understand Martin’s concern.  I’m a people who has a smaller number of deeper friendships compared to many other people.  I’ve been told that I’m discriminating in my friendships and that’s likely true.  I readily admit that I make myself less available to people with whom I have less in common.  I admit further that I have often written off the possibility of friendship with some people based upon various beliefs they hold, despite the fact that such people are, in many …

Continue ReadingReligious differences as a deal-breaker for a friendship

Counterknowledge and the Web

I stumbled onto this excellent column by Damian Thompson about the modern proliferation of pseudo-information. That is, the way various formerly obscure conspiracy cults (UFO’s, moon landing hoaxers, second-shooters, 9/11 Truthers, Flat Earthers, Young Earthers, Inflating Earthers, etc) manage to disseminate their beliefs convincingly to wide and gullible audiences.

Before Gutenberg, only reliable, church-approved texts could be widely read in western culture. Then a new technology came along, and suddenly heretics like Martin Luther or Galileo could publish widely before the church could disappear them and their ideas. It took a few generations to settle down to the publishing and  editorial ethic that made it clear which information was reliable and accepted, and which was fringe. It helped that there was still some economic hurdle to wide publication, and publishers needed to maintain their reputations. This lasted until almost the end of the 20th century.

Now, we have the web. Any misinformed but layout-talented individual can produce publications (pages) that look as wise, vetted, and reliable as Britannica. But without the necessity of prissy little details like fact checking or actual expertise in the subjects being purveyed. Must it be another couple of generations before the average browser can tell fact from fancy?…

Continue ReadingCounterknowledge and the Web

Reading about black holes might make you feel small and insignificant

I warned you, but you're going to click on this link anyway, because you're too damned curious.   Here's an excerpt from this NewScientist article: The most massive known black hole in the universe has been discovered, weighing in with the mass of 18 billion Suns. Observing the orbit of a…

Continue ReadingReading about black holes might make you feel small and insignificant