Welcome to “Perspectives,” the official BLOG for Stephen L. Gibson’s Truth-Driven Thinking efforts! Having hosted the podcast for a couple years now–in conjunction with my writing, speaking, oh … and trying to make a living too–well, I avoided this step like the proverbial plague. But alas, as I find myself constantly facebooking (v. meaning to waste copius amounts of valuable time) and emailing in addition to the podcast, so figured how much more work could it be to centralize via the blog? More to the point, and more seriously, I figured that some of the poignant and thoughtful reactions to (and the ridiculous flames about) my journey as a reforming emotion-driven thinker–would be even more meaningful when exposed to a collective intelligence, or “Wisdom of the Crowd,” to use James Surowiecki’s term.
Candidly, I’m working on a presentation for Dragon*Con 2009 called “Feeding the Skeptic’s Soul,” which is about the isolation one can feel when they see the world from a minority perspective, as I do (agnostic, humanist, skeptic, quazi-determinist). I am fascinated with human behavior: how we come to know what we think we know (epistemology); how we often hold our “beliefs” above critical scrutiny; how we seek information that affirms what we think we know and ignore the rest; how we belittle others who believe differently because they force us to introspection; and how we segregate ourselves by school color, national boundary, creed, color, or other such in-group/out-group criteria. As a result, I try to hold no beliefs above critical scrutiny. In fact, I often say that I try not to hold “beliefs” at all, but rather recognize I have only opinions in various stages of development (and many not very well evolved at all :-)).
So here goes:
THE AIM OF “PERSPECTIVES”
It will be part amateur philosophy, part ramblings on current events, part real-time dispatches from a reforming emotion-driven thinker, and part humanist ministry. Just as those who minister to religious audiences leverage their investment of time in pondering and learning, then generously share that discovery with others (for better or worse), perhaps so to can the humble ruminations of an everyday Midwesterner be of value in providing food for thought for those unsatisfied by certain definitions of the knowable supernatural realm.
THE MISSION OF THE BLOG:
-
To support the mission of Truth-Driven Thinking, with an editorial focus that celebrates and explores the pain, joy, wonder, awe, feelings, and emotion that define our humanity;
-
To ponder everyday issues and personal challenges from the lesser-known skeptical or naturalistic perspectives;
-
To allow others to vicariously learn with me as I examine and expand my understanding of the human experience and the natural world.
BTW, the Truth-Driven Thinking Mission: to encourage intellectual honesty in contemporary dialogue by revealing the prevalence of human tendencies toward emotion-driven thinking, the hidden costs of acting upon the flawed assumptions that result, and by illustrating that science, reason and evidence-based action are the best path to optimizing the “greater good” for all
Lastly, and I can’t say this strongly enough, my standard disclaimers apply. From the web site at www.truthdriventhinking.com:
This site has no claim on truth. Truth is elusive and highly complex (though I do provisionally assume that one truth does exist for all earthly questions–inconceivably complex though it may be). Rather, this site is about methods of discourse and inquiry we can use to attain better approximations of truth. It also suggests truth as the ultimate virtue or goal, above all others (including hope, faith, etc.). Though only provisionally, it also suggests that we reach the best estimates of truth through science, reason, evidence, logic and intellectually honest dialogue. Do NOT EVER believe that this site or any other can tell you what is true and what is not. And CAUTION – there is something here that WILL stimulate an emotional response. When it happens, I beg you to ponder WHY it happens. Why do you have an emotional reaction? Do you hold truth as the highest of virtues?
Perspectives: Food for the Skeptic's Soul (if there is one) 
April 28, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I’m looking forward reading your blog…
Keep up the good work. 🙂
May 4, 2009 at 1:35 am
Your interview with the Christian who had a problem with the very fact that God and Religion is in conflict with Science and Reason. First off, Christians will NEVER define what God is or what attributes God possesses, it is nothing that can be pointed to or shown and produces no values. So in order to have truth about something, it would seem that the burden is on them to produce and define what that something actually is, if God does indeed exist as Christians Claims, they must realize that his attributes on reality and effect on reality are identical to the flying Spaghetti monster. When you say you are agnostic, I find that very interesting and also a confession that you may not understand the very illogical nature of the claim of God in the first place, especially when extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, when we not only have no evidence for God. We have an entire nation of Christians, unwilling to define or state exactly what this God is, how does one identify it? And know its attributes and effects on reality? How do they know it is not Satan pretending to be God? So when you say you are agnostic, what exactly do you mean by that? Especially when God is as well defined as the Pink Tutu fairies of Barnia?
Are you also agnostic about that beleif?
Even if the Christian God exists, he apparently has no impact or ability to impact this earth and reality, and he is as demonstrably as powerful as moss growing on a rock. He is neither worthy of our attention or worship for that matter, because no values are produced or shown to be produces from this word we say… God.
So until God is defined, it is irrational to claim an agnostic view point or any view point, especially when their is not one shred of evidence to support a position of belief or disbelief.
So I am curious how you derive your Agnosticism, when the very concept is ill defined?
How does truth driven thinking support this claim of Agnosticism?
May 4, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Thanks James. Don’t read too much into that one interview, which was going back a bit. And if I didn’t have time to unpack terms, and didn’t talk about atheistic agnosticism, I am a bit surprised. (Did I say only that I was an agnostic? That strikes me as odd, but I’ll take your word for it.) As I said, I was very unhappy with my handling of what, for me, was an unexpected tact—and one different than the one Tim and their producer had discussed.
That said, if you listen to many, many of my podcasts you’ll see I am an atheistic agnostic (and have parsed and dissected those terms many times in both Christian and non-Christian settings). For what it is worth, I prefer the term “non-theist” these days. Still, I’ve made your argument many times and certainly agree with Dawkins on this particular point: God’s existence is extremely unlikely (I think I was where Dawkins was on his scale).
So all that said, please hear the disclaimer on that interview loudly and clearly :-). I sucked, but thought I’d share it because I share everything (though some have reacted very positively to it :-). The only point I will make in my defense—and what I thought was the topic—is that I continue to be fascinated more with how people interact when they disagree, than I necessarily am with the conclusions they reach (though that matters too). We can be so unkind, and divisive, and mean.
I am into consciousness raising, and it should be noted try very hard not to further ill-will or widen the chasms between people of different belief systems–by being provocative, rude or aggressive. When invited to debate, I gladly show up and have a kind and intellectual conversation. Again though, that was not what our producers had discussed, so I was on my “higher” topic of inter-belief tolerance, and how belief that the “supernatural” can be defined (and made natural, incidently:-) can be a catalyst for unkind segregation, tribalism, persecution, and even violence.
Thanks again for the comment James!
May 15, 2009 at 5:20 am
My first line of defense against that kind of christian argumentations is always: faith is not compatible with science from an epistemological point of view. In science, you can’t just believe stuff based on faith. That’s as simple as that: faith vs. reason.
After stating that, I usually jump on something along the line: “so, you claim to be christian and pro-science, and you believe that some guy born of a virgin came back from the dead?”.
May 21, 2009 at 1:26 am
The podcast is one of my favorites, so I’m very glad both that the podcast is continuing (get Tim back too!) and that you are starting the blog.
Now you should join the last five minutes and get a Twitter account…:) Seriously, actually — everyone including me has the same initial reaction to Twitter, but it turns out to be an amazing way to communicate that, like blogs, provides unique benefits.
A note on podcast frequency: I think there’s an over-emphasis among podcasters on the frequency and regularity of a podcast. Many podcasts don’t need a strict schedule, and personally I’d much rather have the less frequent engaging discussion than a regular but harried podcast, or the danger of the podcast taking up too much of your time and energy and requiring you to stop again.
I’d prefer the “truth” always be with us!
May 21, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Okay, Ron, the boycott is over: StephenLGibson is alive and kicking on twitter 🙂 Thanks for the comments and nudge 🙂 (Agree on frequency too)
May 21, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Excellent!
Some interesting skeptical Twitterers I’m following (you know, aside from me at BetterAngels):
– Chris MacDonald, ethics blogger
– Brian Dunning, Skeptoid podcast
– Rachael Dunlop, doctor and very active Australian skeptic (mostly fighting anti-vaccine woo right now), part of SkepticZone podcast
– Richard Saunders, SkepticZone podcast