When considering a response to a blog by a twitter friend, I posed a question to myself...  Why are people so much ruder these days than when I was a kid?  Kids are brattier, people show less consideration for disabled or even simply injured people, and little or none for the elderly.  What has led to this streak of indifference - and even cruelty - that seems to have become a hallmark of western society in the 21st century?

Here's the discussion that went on in my head.

• Is it a generational thing?
• It seems not to be confined to Gen Y or Millennials.  There are plenty of Gen-Xers and Boomers who are oblivious to the needs of others and who seem to take a kind of grim satisfaction in beating others to the punch.
• Okay... so if it's not generational, what other factors could be in play?
• Could it be that other people are all just more oblivious to the wants and needs of others?  There are potentially many reasons why...
• Is there a change in our cultural values towards responsibility for others?  If so, what could be behind this?
• Is this simply a result of a greater sense of personal entitlement?
• So... then I looked at obliviousness. To exhibit the kind of obliviousness that many people show to their common man, there are a number of possible justifications
• Simple misanthropy.  Buy why would so many people dislike each other with so little justification?  Is that perhaps a subliminal "stranger danger" response that has been elicited by the panic-mongering of our politicians over immigration policy and the Global War on Terror (GWOT)?  A xenophobic fear of "otherness"?  But if this is the case, how have our "societies" shrunk to such a small circle that even a stranger in the street now lumped in with the dreaded "other" - even if they might happen to share our own ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds?  So it's probably not quite that.
• Are our own problems now becoming so complex and insurmountable that the issues other people have are now just too much to cope with?  There are people touting statistics stating that we work longer hours for less buying power and have worse work life balance control than our forebears.  Is it possible that these kinds of factors have pushed us into a state of numbness with respect to the needs of others?  This idea seems to fit the facts, but it paints a bleak dystopian view of our civilization.  I can't believe this is all that's going on.  I have just as crappy a time of things as anyone else but I can still see the bigger picture and see beyond my own personal dramas.  I don't see my mind as being so exceptional that I'm the only one who still understands the social contract.
• Is there perhaps a sense of entitlement in play?  It occurs to me that one of the downsides of a Laissez-Faire "User Pays" society is that we are told entirely too much to stick up for our rights, that we have earned the right to do what we want without consequence, and without remorse.  That we as "the little guy" don't have to kow-tow to social convention and that our freedoms matter.  This seems to make more sense to me, as I occasionally find myself wondering why it is that other people won't get out of my way when I need them to.  However, if I can rise above my own sense of personal entitlement when it is appropriate to show some empathy for others, why can't everyone else?

The truth here is that we're probably all guilty of some or all of the above, and the effect tends to be cumulative, not driven exclusively by any one of the influences outlined.  The one thing that I think differentiates those of us who are capable of showing some decency to those around us and those who don't is simply a matter of empathy.  The person who leans on the horn to tell another motorist to go faster may not have considered the possibility that the person in front might be looking for a specific side-street that they might not have been to before.  The teenagers walking six-abreast down a busy city footpath (sidewalk for those of you in the US) and not leaving space for people travelling in the opposite direction are generally not thinking about the possibility that other people might want to use the space they are so aggressively monopolizing.  The person who leaves a shopping trolley blocking an entire aisle while they look at something at an end-of-aisle merchandising display are generally not thinking about the people who they might be holding up by doing so.  These are things that we've all been guilty of one time or another ourselves, yet we all find them hard to forgive others for.

Ultimately I think this boils down to a sense of mindfulness.  We are not reminded enough in our consumption-driven materialistic society that mindfulness is as much a virtue as possession, punctuality or trying to fill the abyssal pit of despair we all feel in a disconnected and seemingly disenfranchised society.

If you're going to take away anything from reading this blog entry, make it this.  Before you leap to anger or impatience, put yourself in the shoes of the people around you before taking aggressive action to empower yourself at the expense of others.  This kind of mindfulness is fundamental to good manners, and to respectful neighbourly behaviour.  Ask yourself why that person is doing what they're doing and whether it's reasonable to expect them to do otherwise.  If the answer is still "No, they're the ones being unmindful" then perhaps a simple statement of this lesson to your tormentors might be more productive than an aggressive or belligerent response.

With that, may you all have a mindful, successful and happy new year.  May 2012 bring us all what we need, not just what we want! :) 

Hopefully in my case, the good karma I've tried to earn with this blog this will result in winning lottery tickets in Australia's $31m X-lotto this weekend!

My partner and I have been having a number of frank discussions recently regarding my assertion that I am an Agnostic rather than an Atheist.  The Atheist Foundation of Australia defines Atheism as "Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural."  My partner has decided that this definition is now what Atheism is, but I have issues with both the definition, and with the statement that it's the ONLY definition that matters.

Let's start with first principles from an etymological perspective.

Agnostic - from the greek : a - without, and gnosis - knowledge.  In English, gnosis is taken to mean "Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, an esoteric form of knowledge sought by the Gnostics."

So... from this linguistic basis, Agnosticism is the sense that one is without a sense of esoteric or spiritual knowledge.  Contrast this with:

Atheism - from the greek : a - without, and theos - god.  In English, theism is taken to mean "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world."

Thus: Atheism is the sense that one is without belief in a god or gods.

Being more specific: my take on the difference is as follows...

Agnostics state that the question of the existence of a god, higher being or numinous intelligence behind the universe's existence is too big for a definitive answer.  Atheists assert that the question CAN and SHOULD be answered in the negative. 

Deconstructing the ridiculous drivel from the AFA, it seems to be a deer stuck in the headlights of oncoming traffic at a cross-roads. 

On the East-West run, you have a weak attempt at intellectual rigour.  By dressing up the denial of deity in pseudoscientific terms, the AFA is trying to take the intellectual high ground over their opponents in the religious community.  Sadly, there's nothing rational in the statement that "there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence..." - you can't prove the negative case for the existence of an unknowable entity by saying "there's no proof."  What if the very existence of the universe itself is proof of an omnipotent creator?  Given the limited scope of human knowledge, who are we to state that there's no proof positive of a higher intelligence? 

On the North-South run, you have the simple hubris of the statement that the science of a marginally sentient race of upright apes who owe their success as a species to an interesting tension between social cooperation and competition is even vaguely capable of measuring the existence (or non-existence) of a higher power.

So... that's definitions out of the way.

My attitude is that I am simply a smartish ape with access to some technology that rates as a little more advanced that pointy sticks, but is ultimately nothing to write home about in the context of what can be imagined (and therefore, probably exists in a more developed part of the universe).  With my silicon tech (it's a bit smarter than banging rocks together, but not much), I can perform complex calculations a lot faster than I can do them in my head, but I can't measure divinity.  Even the egg-heads from the LHC project at CERN will happily admit that the search for the Higgs-Boson is not an attempt to measure the existence of God - even though the proto-particle they're looking for is nick-named "The God Particle". 

As Clarke's third law states:  "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."  On a similar basis, the effects of any technology sufficiently more advanced than our own must therefore appear to be the work of a divine being.  Given the size of the universe, number of galaxies, stars, planets, etc... I find it hard to believe that there's not races in the universe sufficiently more intelligent and technologically capable than us so as to appear as if gods to beings with our limited level of comprehension.

However, there's also another angle to the Agnostic vs Atheist debate.  My partner likes trying to point out to me that claiming to be an agnostic is the same thing as condoning institutionalized religion.  I take umbrage at this statement.  This seems to be a piece of programming common to many of the popular atheism blogs.  Strangely, it has more in common with the sorts of statements made by the leaders of religious sects - i.e. "If you're not with us, you're against us!"  Personally, I think such a binary view of the world is flawed.  The world is not just black or white.  As an agnostic, I respect the right of other people to have faith.  While I suspect their beliefs are more rooted in mythology than in any kind of measurable reality, I don't think faith is a weakness.  Sometimes, faith can be the difference between a  cognitive meltdown and a good night's sleep.  Who am I to force insomnia on others?

On the other hand, I have big issues with people who tell other people what to believe.  My opinion (despite my partner's assertions to the contrary) is that the leaders of cults and organized religious institutions are predatory, exploitative bastards, and they should all go rot in their personal definitions of whatever hell is.  Rather than promoting ignorance and painting critical thinking as "giving in to temptation," these amoral pricks should stick to promoting the good things that religion can lead to - a sense of community, charitable works, and a generosity of spirit that transcends the mean-hearted money-grubbing power-hungry carry-on they are so prone to.  However, my approach is not to campaign against them.  When one draws battle lines, it's too easy to be brought down to the level of your opponent.  I'd rather follow the approach from another A.C. Clarke quote - "Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the non-existence of Zeus or Thor — but they have few followers now." 

The great quest should not be a search for absolutes, as they cannot exist when we are such tiny specks of intelligence in a near infinite universe.  We should instead seek to critically determine the difference between superstition and wisdom, and find ways to give our lives meaning on our own terms.  If some people need to turn to old books to find the wisdom therein, then so be it.  But let's ensure that as a society, we're giving them the critical tools to distinguish mythology from meaningful social and personal truths.  The epistles of Paul and the book of Revelations are hardly reasonable bed-time reading - the first being sprinkled with misogynstic and homophobic rhetoric, and the latter most likely being the mad ravings of a schizophrenic.  But "Do unto others as thou wouldst have them do unto you" is a good policy, regardless of your beliefs.  Likewise, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is simply a restatement of the social contract.  However, we should also not forget that Christ's teachings against the hypocrisy present in certain sects of the Hebrew faith during his time are valid today.  We should not be afraid to ask the Fred Niles and the Fred Phelpses of the world to critically analyze their behaviour in the context of the Gospels, rather than let them continue to selectively pick out the old testament and Pauline texts that happen to support their particular points of view.  Likewise, we should be able to expect that the muslim world which brought such great scientific gifts to the world should also subject its own religious leaders to similar scrutiny.

We should not forget that the point of scripture was to give people guidance on how to live good and productive lives.  However, we should not be so caught up in what scripture demands of us that we forget the good, and the living.  Most importantly, we should remember to put the folk tales of empires long gone into their appropriate social, political and philosophical context.  Our values and our beliefs are our own choice.  Some of us choose to honour the rational and empirical imperative to say that "In the absence of concrete proof to the positive of any theory, we should simply say we haven't proved it yet," rather than to say "without proof, the divinity hypothesis is untrue."  To me, the latter is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so I'm not afraid to stand proudly and say I'm an agnostic, because I simply do not know.

Next time you have a religious (or irreligious) debate with someone, ask yourself how you have come to know what you "know".  Challenge your own suppositions before you try tearing down those of another person.  But also don't be afraid to call people on exploitation and controlling practices.  Have fun with the debate, and make the outcomes positive.  Don't seek to tear down the other side, but to help them find the wisdom in your own argument while also acknowledging the wisdom in their own.  Don't forget that intellectual freedom also permits people to make choices we disagree with.  And have a nice day! :P

I've been doing some more tech posts on yet another new blog.  I decided to split the techy posts into two areas:

1. SQL Server posts (on which I'm pretty much an expert)
• I'm starting out with a fairly long series of posts about SQL Server metadata
• These posts are also going to help focus some ideas for a data architecture product I'm hoping to build (or at least, start building) this year.
2. .NET Development posts (where I'm blogging as I learn)
• In is blog, I'm blogging my experiences on building a relatively simple app (not Hello World, but not an ERP system either) that will give me exposure to a bunch of different .NET framework areas.
• I've also started up an open source project at http://dpga.codeplex.com/ which will allow people to download/view what I've done so far and provide feedback on what I can improve..

The SQL Server posts are at: http://ozziemedessql.blogspot.com/ and the .NET newbie posts are at http://ozziemedes.blogspot.com/ .

Feel free to take a look.  Subscribe to the feeds if you like them.  I'm going to try to post to each blog at least once a week, and more often if time permits.