The Awe of a Young Mind

When I was young I often made predictions, mostly with technology, based on what I had seen. Usually they became true in some way, but one in particular only recently came true, and I was more accurate than I had thought I was back then.

I had this old solid state drive computer, the memory and the storage were essentially the same thing, so you could run something, suspend it and switch to another app, then switch back and everything would be right where you left off. I thought it was the coolest thing and predicted it would replace conventional hard drives.

Then I was disappointed, as I never saw the technology used again. At least, I didn't see it in use again until recently. Now it is literally everywhere, smart phones and tablets are the primary devices we now see this same technology in, with some improvements. It's faster and smaller now, so we have much more memory than when I was young.

I thought about this recently and pondered why it is we remember these kind of predictions so well, and why do we make them more when we're young yet not so much as we get older. My inner scientist began working on this inquiry, recalling all pertinent information.

The conclusion offered another very important reason we need to keep pushing our youth to learn as much as they can. Also why we need to expose them to as many aspects of science as possible at a young age. The simple awe we see in new things wears off, eventually life loses that luster, that new car smell.

But during those glorious years of youth our minds are more open to possibilities, some seemingly impossible things to an adult will be nothing more than challenges for the young minds. We lose our sense of wonder and awe as we grow because our brains are only capable of holding so much information, until that limit is reached they are like sponges for everything.

But once we reach that limit things begin to be compacted, and our desires to fill our brains lessens. Some of us renew our desire for knowledge by trying new things, mixing it up a bit, so our brain doesn't feel like it's just rehashing the same things over and over again. This is not a flaw in our species, ironically, it is a huge benefit.

Once you get older you want to talk about your life and share your experiences as a result of losing most of your desire to learn, you become the teacher for the next generation, sharing what you have learned so they don't have to relearn it. As humans this has become the most valuable method of advancing our society and culture, yet it is something we are failing to do.

In my blog I share what amounts to my life, the things I experience, in the hopes that it will help others in some way, specifically younger people. Let them know of my mistakes and my lessons so that they can progress without having to relearn what I did. That is what all blogs should be, a massive collaboration of ideas, lessons, and general life knowledge, wisdom of the elders.

We have been failing to do this in other ways, mostly because our species has grown too massive in population, but also because there are people who prefer to brainwash or indoctrinate the young, rather than teach or allow them to learn. But they can't stop the youth from seeking out the wisdom online, so this is our chance to correct the mistakes made by society, let's make humanity perfect together.

Atheists Contradict Each Other

The title is something I hear quite often, with variations to suite a specific incident. It is also very incorrect. Let's go there ...

Ask a hundred christians the answer to something, you will get a hundred different answers, many will contradict each other as there is no standard with which to define who is accurate, and who is just making stuff up as they go along. The reason for this lies in their own "doctrine," a silly word that really means "bible" to them. The wording in the texts they claim to abide by is meant to be contradictory, the original con artists were actually pretty smart on this matter.

Thus you wind up with "interpretations," and nothing that is interpreted can ever be declared as fact for this very reason. The irony that these same christians often claim science is also "interpreted," talk about a total lack of education there. The reason they can often get away with this claim is the very same reason the title of this article is incorrect, atheist do often give a wide variety of answers to even the most solid fact.

But it's not "interpretation" that causes it, it's perspective. Perspective has nothing to do with interpretation, though interpretation is often skewed by perspective, the two are not mutually inclusive. What is really happening is that each atheist will have studied a different field in any particular area, and since fields overlap a lot you will get answers specific to their fields on the same topic quite often.

I'll use the evolution of the human eye as one of the most perfect examples of this. To a geneticist or biochemist you will be given a possible reason in which such an evolutionary track could occur, and there are many such possibilities. There are actually more possibilities of how this could occur than what actually did occur, because it only happened in with one such possibility.

In comes the paleontologist who will show you how we understand it did occur, through fossil and biological evidence found in our rocks. By looking at the fossils, then referring the known possibilities, it's pretty easy to figure out which one happened. This answer will be nearly indisputable fact, we have the records in stone.

While the two answers will appear to be very different, they are not. They appear to be different because of the fields of study, and thus the perspective of the one offering the answer. This is compounded by language, culture, and even current emotional state. Neither answer will be incorrect, both will be correct, they just address different contexts.

Oh, what a horribly misunderstood word, context if often touted as an excuse for interpretations of religious texts varying, which is really just ignoring all the other reasons for it. Context is essentially saying "in light of this information," which is more apt in describing the different answers you receive to scientific inquiries.

Science, the key to all our, real, understanding of the universe ... and beyond. Oddly enough there is not one "universe" but a bunch of them in what we can now just refer to as "reality." Science is not really a "thing" though, often people will incorrectly assume or imply that science just does. However, science is a tool, much like a hammer or computer, well, more like a hammer and a computer in one, as well as a stethoscope, a telegraph, a ... you get the idea.

It's a generic tool that, when used properly, can be used to find flaws in evidence. Science does not disprove assertions, it finds flaws in the evidence, and an assertion lacking evidence can, and should, be dismissed. That's what science does for us, it's like a filter, removing the rock and leaving us with gold.

It is no coincidence that us atheists are prone to studying scientific findings so much. For one, without all that worshiping of an imaginary being we have a lot of free time. Another is that we cannot be satisfied with one, simple, answer. We have to know more, when one answer is found we have to find other answers to compare them to. That's just a very common trait atheists share, and one that helps keep our species from looking like total morons.

So yes, our answers will vary; yes, we will disagree; and yes, no two atheists will ever be identical. But that's what makes us so much more human than most religious people.