Snow in the Mojave Desert

I spent the last two weeks working in the western Mojave Desert, surveying transmission line routes for Southern California Edison (you know, I gripe about clients, but SCE really has been a fantastic client - they pay on time, they have us supervised by other archaeologists who speak our language, and they work with the agencies rather than against them - and I am very happy that we have won a contract that pretty much promises our job security for the next couple of years).

So, we were in the Mojave Desert in the winter, and it snowed. In the desert. It was pretty damn cool.

So, here's some photos of the fieldwork. I hope you enjoy them.

The Joshua Tree against the snow:




And now some snow-covered mountains:





And now, perhaps, some odd but pleasant clouds, plus a shot of John actually working while I take pretty pictures:





And, of course, artifact photos, check out the Prince Albert in a Can:




The black stuff in the top photo - that's slag, melted brick. This is from a site with a boiler - a brick structure that housed a furnace for powering a steam engine - and the temperatures would get hot enough to melt the bricks over time.




And it's interesting to note that sodas have now been around long enough to qualify as artifacts in archaeological sites - and because of the changing corporate logos over time, they are great for determining the age of the sites:

Not a REAL Christian

There is a very odd, but unnerving, phenomenon that I have seen my entire life, but which has only started to really bother me recently (because, well, I can be kinda' dense), and I was prompted to write this by a conversation I overheard while in a Coffee shop in Lancaster earlier this week. This phenomenon of which I speak is the tendency for members of a religion to point to other members of the same religion who simply aren't in lock-step with them, and shout "they are not a real member of the faith!" In the U.S., it's most common to hear that someone is a fake Christian so that's what I'll speak of directly here, but you'll also hear it used to refer to members of other religions as well.

Now, I'm an outsider to all religions, so it may strike you as odd that this would bother me. However, this bothers me for a few reasons. The first reason is that it is simply arrogant - yeah, that doesn't affect me, but it annoys me. Really, the only way to know that someone is not a true Christian is to know that they don't believe in Jesus, and are therefore, by definition, not a Christian. Otherwise, you may take issue with their view of Christianity, but it's astoundingly arrogant to claim that they are not Christian simply because they disagree with you on issues of charity, gay rights, war, gun ownership (yes, I've actually heard this one, I didn't know that Jesus was overly concerned with firearms, it must be in the Apocrypha), acceptance of scientific discoveries, etc. etc.

Most of the time, the arguments are either over issues that the Bible doesn't directly mention or is vague about, or issues where, based on the Bible, you could argue many different points of view. However, most people have a set of beliefs based on their experience and/or the teachings of their particular clergy, and they are unwilling to accept that someone who believes in the same scripture that they do might interpret it another way. It really frustrates me to see people fight over the "true meaning" where there are, based on the criteria they themselves outline, multiple legitimate stances. I always have this urge to scream "if you kid's don't stop fighting in the back seat, I'm turning this theology round, and we're going right back home!"

Another reason why it bothers me is that the logician in me gets ruffled. I have yet to see someone accuse another of not being a "true Christian" who is not cherry-picking the Bible just as much as the person at whom they are throwing accusations. The Bible is a large, complicated book, and people have been pulling out what they like and ignoring the rest for as long as there has been organized Christianity (and I have to imagine that the same happened with the Jewish peoples before there was a Christianity). So, it really annoys me when I see people hypocritically attack other people for doing the same thing that the attacker is doing.

Quite simply, if a modern Christian wasn't cherry-picking the Bible, they would not be living anything like a modern westerner does. The restrictions and requirements of the religion as laid out in the New Testament simply don't allow for many of the excesses that are a normal part of life in the U.S. and western Europe - and I am talking about things that we all take for granted, such as having enough personal wealth to own a television, a car, a large house, etc. etc. So, when someone accuses another of not being Christian for cherry-picking the Bible, I always want to ask them how that beam in their own eye is doing.

Another aspect of this that sticks in my craw is that it is, quite simply, cheating. If two people are arguing for different positions using the same source material, then it is fair for them to do two things: 1) they can agree to disagree and go on about life, or 2) they can debate and hash it out until they either reach consensus or go back to the first option. So, when someone simply says "well, they're not a real Christian", this is essentially just a cheat, a way of saying "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!" Essentially, it is the person making the accusation abandoning responsibility for having to defend their position, and then is blaming the other person for the poor behavior of the accuser. It's basically just a form of bullying.

A more practical reason for this to bother me, however, is simply this: it removes social predictability, which is necessary for trust. When someone turns on their own with rage and vitriol over points of religious dispute, I have no way of knowing that they won't turn on anyone else over other matters, especially when the matters over which they are fighting look completely arbitrary to an outsider. Simply put, it makes it difficult to trust someone on other issues when they would rather cast out and attack their brethren who have legitimate disagreements over issues that seem strange or convoluted to an outsider. If someone who generally agrees with them is considered a hated "other", then how will they view someone who has less in common?

In truth, of course, over the years I have found that I can trust some of these folks and that their ire is, for a variety of reasons, directed primarily at their religious fellows. But I have found that my relations with them have always been a bit stressed, as I don't know what will set them off, and as I agree with them on less than those at home they are angry...well, it's a difficult situation to navigate.

William Shatner, Possibly the Coolest Guy 'Round

When the hell did William Shatner become cool? I mean, really, what the hell? When did he become so damn cool?

I mean, I have long wanted to ask John Edwards this:




...and then, there's the fact that I have always wanted to say this:




...and, really, you just can't beat this song:

The Past as the Present

One of the fastest ways to really piss people off is to inform that that their favored view of history is wrong. We use history as a mythology to explain (or proclaim) who we are, and to make claims as to what our proper course of action should be.

If you don't believe me, try telling a fundamentalist Christian that many of the Founding Fathers of the United States were not Christian, or try telling a politically-motivated secularist that a number of them were, in fact, Christian. Sit back and watch the orgy of invective ensue. One side will scream that the founders were all Christians (usually implying that the Christianity was of a decidedly 20th/21st century form) and that they created the U.S.A. as a "Christian Nation" (thus proving that these people have little knowledge of the history of the nation, and even less knowledge of the Constitution that is the basis of its law), while the other side will insist that the founders were deists, not Christians, and that they intentionally created a secular nation (the simple fact of the matter is that the founders were a religiously diverse group, though the secular nation part is actually backed by the Constitution - which only mentions religion only twice, both times forbidding government interference or endorsement - read it here and here if you don't believe me, look for the part that makes the U.S. a Christian nation - it isn't there).

Why so much grief over what these people believed over two centuries ago?

Because the argument isn't about the past, it's about the present. People who want to be able to force their religion on others cling to the fiction of a group of founders who were entirely Christian and who wished for a Christian nation because this lets them feel that history is on their side, and that they are simply fulfilling our forefather's will. By contrast, those who oppose them are also clinging to a fiction in an attempt to discredit their opponents and claim that their opponents are "dangerously un-American."

The truth of the matter is rather more complicated. The "Founding Fathers" itself is a vague term, and may refer to all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence as well as the delegates to the Constitutional Convention (a list of whom can be found here), or it may be used to refer to a sub-set, depending on the intentions of the person identifying the Founding Fathers. The entire group is large and composed of people of a wide variety of political, religious, and social views. It includes both Christians and deists, as well as atheists and people who defy religious description. Members of the group wrote a good deal about their views on the role of religion in government, and someone who wants to cherry-pick can easily find something that supports their views, provided that they ignore everything else that is relevant to the discussion. From a legal/government standpoint, all of that pales in comparison to the fact that these people all eventually agreed to a Constitution, intended as the law of the land, that separated the government and religion.

From a social mythology standpoint, however, the actual fact of what is written in the Constitution matters little, what is more important is the question of the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. And so, here we are, with two competing mythologies, one which portrays the Founding Fathers as entirely Deist, the other of which portrays them as entirely Christian. Both are false, but that doesn't remove the power of these stories amongst those ready to accept them. Those who cling to the Deist myth are afraid that acknowledgement of Christian founders will result in a theocratic takeover, and a loss of legitimacy to secularist positions. Meanwhile, those who buy the myth of a Christian founding are afraid that acknowledgement of the rather more complex founding, and the decidedly secular nature of the Constitution will erode their own religious rights. And so these two sides continue to fight, never having any hope of conclusion or victory because both are too blinded by the politics of the present to honestly evaluate the past.

While this sort of thing is most visible in church/state separation fights, it is common in many other public historical narratives. I have written before about the White and Black legends of Spanish colonization of the Americas. Both the white Legend of Spanish benevolence and the Black Legend of Spanish malfeasance are rooted in modern politics and mores, rather than in a fair accounting of the historical record. The same can be said for the competing narratives regarding the spread of Christianity/quashing of Paganism in the Roman Empire, the heroism or villainy of figures such as Christopher Columbus, the glory or evil of Manifest Destiny, even questions as to whether or not Keynesian economics helped lift the U.S. out of the Great Depression, etc. etc.

History is a vast and very complicated mosaic. There are many reasons to study it - it's interesting for one thing, but it can also provide clues as to what our problems are and how to solve or avoid them. History is also a source for ideological mythology. This is a fact that was well understood by the early historians - the Roman historian Livy, for example, made no bones about the fact that he was more interested in telling a story that glorified Rome than in telling one that was accurate. Livy understood the power of a mythological past, and we should probably be grateful that, unlike most modern spinners of myths, he was at least open about the fact that he was doing this, allowing us to more easily take what he said with a grain of salt.

Likewise, governments have long understood the value of history as myth. It's a rare nation that hasn't endorsed an official account of the past, which is never an accurate account. Totalitarian governments even go so far as to outlaw non-official versions (there are numerous accounts of historian and archaeologists running afoul of Stalin's government, and Hitler was just as certain to go after academics as to go after active dissidents, just to give two examples), indeed, the fact that academics are able to publish unpopular accounts of the past is not only evidence that they are probably giving accurate accounts (the truth is rarely as favorable or condemning as most people want it to be), but also that our society truly is a free one.

Most responsible researchers can not get away from their own perspectives, but responsible researchers are aware of that and fill their books and articles with qualifiers and references to aid the reader in evaluating the arguments. When you are fed a historical narrative by members of your social group, or leaders of your political party, or political activists (whether you're a fan of the Green Party or of the Tea Party), or clergy, or industry leaders...well, you get the point...by very skeptical of what they are telling you. Odds are that their account of the past is more about what they want in the present than what truly occurred.

Nerdery by Any Other Name

I remember, one Thanksgiving, sitting at my maternal grandparents house while my grandfather, uncles, and male cousins all gathered around the television to watch football. I went out on the patio and read my book - I forget what it was, but I do remember that it was science fiction - and relaxed. After a short time, one of my cousins came outside, saw me sitting there, and asked why I wasn't in watching football with the other men-folk. I replied, honestly, that I simply wasn't interested in football.

"What? Are you gay, or something?"

Ahh, yes, the predictable response. I will never understand why it is that some people assume that I'm gay because I don't watch men in tight pants jumping on top of each other.

The cousin then proceeded to mock me because I was reading a science fiction novel. I was used to it by this point in my life, and just ignored him and went back to my book. But I noticed something that day that I have found rather fascinating ever since, and I thought I might share my observation here: those traits that people make fun of in "nerds" (defined here as people into escapist recreation such as reading science fiction, playing role-playing games, etc.) are identical to traits observed in "jocks" (defined here as people who are really into sports)*, but because the subject matter, one is generally socially accepted while the other is generally mocked. I find this interesting.

Let's do a quick compare-and-contrast to show what I'm talking about...

It is common to note the tendency for the nerd to know all manner of things about their particular science-fiction or fantasy realm of choice. We often make fun of people who can tell you the fine details of the engine room of the Star ship Enterprise, or who know the full back story to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or who can name all of the actors to appear as the lead in Doctor Who. This devotion to a particular bit of pop-culture is seen as quirky at best, and shameful and juvenile at worst.

However, most of us don't think twice when we meet an adult (especially a man) who can give you the details of the 1989 line-up of the San Francisco Giants, or who knows the complete list of all players who have scored the winning points in all of the Superbowls. We tend to think of this as someone who is simply a sports fan/hobbyist. No big deal.

However, both people accumulate absolutely useless information. They do so because they enjoy it, and there's nothing wrong with that (I fall into the nerd camp, myself, and hold no grudge against those who do the equivalent with sports), but that doesn't change the fact that it is, in the end, useless information. It's even used in the same way - as social currency with other fans in both groups.


Okay, let's try another set of identical behaviors...

I have often seen my fellow nerds mocked for collecting memorabilia. For me, it's old gaming books (hey, I like to read, and books take up less space than other collectibles, and I collect used books, so I'm keeping things out of landfills), but for others it may be Star Trek props, or Star Wars toys, or DVDs, or...well, all manner of things.

Jocks often collect sports memorabilia. It may be home-run balls, it may be merchandised team clothing, it may be autographed photos of athletes, it may be...well, anything sports related. I have never seen anyone mocked for this, and yet the collecting and display behaviors are absolutely identical. In both cases, the person gathers items, and may even attribute significance to certain ones (really, how is "this was Mark MacGuire's record-setting home run ball" any different than "this is the phaser prop that William Shatner used in Star Trek II"? Either way you're attributing special significance to an inanimate object because of it's connection to a prominent individual), and in both cases the problems associated are the same (running oneself into debt for the collection, and - in the case of people who collect merchandise - adding to the glut of consumer goods that will some day occupy a landfill).


Let's take a look at another place where the difference is non-existent...

A common staple of the sit-com is a scene in which two science fiction fans argue about the relative merits of their own particular fascination: the Star Wars fan fighting with the Star Trek fan, for example. They always throw around obscure terms, and argue about minutiae that seem silly to the outsider because, well, it is pretty damn silly.

Ever hear the fans of two sports teams have at each other? Same damn thing. I was in one of my company's offices last week listening as a San Diego Chargers fan and a Vikings fan, and the absurdity of their conversation became increasingly apparent as time went on - calling out obscure points, and getting quite heated with each other over a game. It was also pretty damn silly.


One last behavior, that of the fantasy game...

It is common to see the nerds mocked for our enjoyment of role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons. It's even a common scene on television to see** this used as a shorthand way of signaling that someone is a geek, and the games are always portrayed as especially silly. But, let's look at what the games actually are: players create characters, which are abstracted as (usually) number-heavy abstractions on a sheet of paper or a computer program, and conflict resolution is determined through player description of action coupled with mathematical formulae based on the character sheet.

Now, let's look at something that is becoming increasingly popular in the jock world: fantasy football. In fantasy football, one builds a team, which is a set of player descriptions comprised of number-heavy abstractions on a sheet of paper or a computer program. Conflicts (in this case, fictional football games) are resolved through mathematical formulae based on the team sheet.

So, ummmmm, fantasy football is really nothing but sports-themed Dungeons and Dragons.

........

I could keep going, but I think you probably get the point. The distinction between nerd fandom and jock fandom is truly a distinction without a difference. so why do we make this distinction?

Well, I suspect that it comes down to time. Sports have been with us for a very, very long time. Everyone is familiar with them, and therefore comfortable with them. By contrast, science fiction, in it's modern form, really began with the pulps of the 1930s, and was, for a long while, primarily the province of magazines and movies aimed at young audiences, adding to it's assessment as a "juvenile" form of entertainment. Add to that the fact that many of those interested in science fiction and fantasy were attracted to it because it offered a safe harbor from the sports that we were either not good at or simply uninterested in, and the distinction is set.

However, as time goes on, the distinction is beginning to melt away. As noted, Fantasy Football is nothing but Dungeons and Dragons with sports trappings. The popularity of computer games such as World of Warcraft and science fiction movies is making these things more socially acceptable. While the zealots are still going to be looked down on, we also see examples of sports zealots getting similar treatment (I have, in recent years, seen more pop culture examples of people who paint themselves in team colors being mocked, for example). And as the average age of the Role Playing Game player increases (at age 34, I was, until recently, the youngest member of my group), even these seem to be becoming more acceptable.

So, what's interesting to me is that it really does seem to be a matter of time for something to move away from the perceived realm of zealots and geeks, and into the mainstream. It seems that the marginalization of certain forms of entertainment (and those who indulge in them) has more to do with how familiar the rest of the population is with it than with the content of the entertainment itself.

And that, I think, is rather fascinating.








*And yes, I am aware that there are plenty of people who are very much into both nerd and jock things. I'm using this simplification because it's one that most people in the U.S. use, and so the phenomenon exists as a social construction, if nothing else.

**There is a commercial for Monday Night Football, one that I actually thought was quite funny, which contrasts a guy watching football with his friends playing Dungeons and Dragons, the implication being that the guy watching football was having a better time. While the commercial was funny, having known people who are into both activities, I found myself thinking that the gamers were probably having more fun than the football watcher.

Warp Drives - Hollywood Hillbilly and Swedish Chef Style!

Courtesy of the http://www.rinkworks.com/dialect/


In case you'd rather the the Warp Drive Argument in psuedo-hillbilly style:

ah's hankerin' warp drive ingines t'be real, ah reckon.

Yo' know, like in Star Trek, warp drive ingines thet will aller a star ship t'move significantly faster than th' speed of light, allerin' us t'travel t'distant stars in a matter of days, o' mebbe even hours. ah's hankerin' t'be able t'git on board a star ship an' travel vast distances, seein' whut is out thar, an' eff'n alien life exists, meet it.

This hyar will not happen in mah life time. In truth, it will probably nevah happen at all, ah reckon. Th' laws of physics bein' whut they are, th' odds of ennyone alive today evah venturin' out past our solar system is purdy much nil, ah reckon. Even eff'n hoominity does travel t'distant stars, it'll likely hafta be through sumpin like junerashun ships - whar a populashun thet reprodooces on over th' course of centuries travels, rather than indivijools of a particular junerashun beginnin' an' indin' th' trip. An' this hyar is assumin' thet we kin figger out how t'have a populashun live fo' extended periods of time on a space ship an' not be killed off by enny one of th' millions of thin's in th' unyverse thet thrett up us once we leave th' safety of Earth's atmosphar.

When ah consider this, it depresses me a bit. Th' Earth, vast as it us on th' hoomin scale, is nothin' in comparison wif th' size of our galaxy, an' t'knows thet ah will be fo'evah limited by th' atmosphar of this hyar watery rock makes me feel mo'e than a bit claestrophobic when ah stop an' cornsider. ah's hankerin' mah warp drive, dammit! Fry mah hide!

But, of course, ah cain't haf mah warp drive (o', better yet, a TARDIS). Wantin' it, reckonin' about how great it'd be, an' cornsiderin' how much less interestin' life is wifout it does not in enny way cuz th' laws of physics t'change an' make th' warp drive (o' TARDIS - mine'd be disguised as a filin' cabinet) postible.

Okay, Mr. Armstrong, whut does this hyar have t'do wif ennythin'?

Wal, I'll tell yo'.

One of th' mo'e frequent argoomnts thet ah hear in favo' of debatable proposishuns is a variashun on mah argoomnt in favo' of warp drives an' TARDISes. Varmints may phrase it diffruntly, they may say sumpin like "wifout X" whar X may mean ennythin' fum ghosts t'gods t'magic, "th' wo'ld/unyverse'd seem so cold/bo'in'/uninterestin'/lonely thet ah cain't accepp thet X ain't real, ah reckon."

Wal, as stated, wifout warp drives, th' wo'ld seems too isolated an' cornstrainin' fo' me, but thet don't make warp drives real, no' does some one's tendency t'be cold/bo'ed/uninterested/lonesome make whutevah their pet noshun is true. Likewise, th' fack thet someone has dedicated their life t'a false premise, whutevah thet premise may be, don't in enny way make th' premise true an' mo'e than th' fack thet varmints haf dedicated their lives t'dreamin' up methods of faster-than-light travel has made this hyar a physical postibility.

Fo' an example of this hyar principle in ackshun, cornsider sumpin thet happened t'me back in 2000. An acquaintance at wawk axed eff'n ah was a Jedtian, as enny fool kin plainly see. ah responded thet ah was not. They axed me whuffo', an' ah replied thet ah had nevah see enny persuasive evidence fo' th' exissence of a god of enny so't, much less th' Jedtian God, cuss it all t' tarnation. They then stated thet they had a quesshun thet, eff'n ah answered it honestly,'d brin' me t'Jedtianity. ah was curious, ah requested thet they reveal this hyar quesshun t'me. It was this:

"Don't yer hankerin' t'spend an eternity in th' bliss of Hevvin?"

Classic Warp Drive Argoomnt.

Do ah find th' idea of an eternally blissful af'erlife appealin'? Yessuh. Do ah wish thet thar was sech a place an' thet ah w'd git t'go thar? Absolutely. Is this hyar desuhe evidence of it's exissence? Unfo'tunately, no.

So, in th' end, th' co-wawker who wished t'convaht me went away disappointed, cuss it all t' tarnation. Mah desuhe fo' thar t'be a benevolent God an' a Hevvin does not provide evidence fo' th' exissence of Kin'dom Come o' God, cuss it all t' tarnation. An' unnerstan' thet ah's not bein' sarcastic hyar, ah pow'ful does wish thet thar was a benevolent God an' a Hevvin (hey, thar haf been times when ah jest wished thet ah believed wifout wishin' fo' mah beliefs t'be true), but mah wishin' fo' it is simply not evidence thet it is true.

Th' same is true of ghosts, psychic powers (which'd be mighty bost...if they existed, thet is), Reiki, Trimenjusfoot, an' all manner of other thin's. Th' basic problem is thet menny varmints doesn't reckanize thet they is usin' a Warp Drive Argoomnt even when they are. But, perhaps, eff'n yo' point it out, yo'll haf less friend, cuss it all t' tarnation....ah mean, yo'll improve varmints's ability t'reckon critically about their beliefs.

...or, perhaps you prefer the Muppet's Swedish Chef:

I vunt verp dreefe-a ingeenes tu be-a reel.

Yuoo knoo, leeke-a in Ster Trek, verp dreefe-a ingeenes thet veell elloo a ster sheep tu mufe-a seegnifficuntly fester thun zee speed ooff leeght, ellooeeng us tu trefel tu deestunt sters in a metter ooff deys, oor meybe-a ifee huoors. Um gesh dee bork, bork! I vunt tu be-a eble-a tu get oon buerd a ster sheep und trefel fest deestunces, seeeeng vhet is oooot zeere-a, und iff eleeee leeffe-a ixeests, meet it. Um de hur de hur de hur.

Thees veell nut heppee in my leeffe-a teeme-a. In troot, it veell prubebly nefer heppee et ell. Zee levs ooff physeecs beeeng vhet zeey ere-a, zee oodds ooff unyune-a eleefe-a tudey ifer fentooreeng oooot pest oooor suler system ere-a pretty mooch neel. Ifee iff hoomuneety dues trefel tu deestunt sters, it'll leekely hefe-a tu be-a thruoogh sumetheeng leeke-a genereshun sheeps - vhere-a a pupooleshun thet reprudooces oofer zee cuoorse-a ooff centooreees trefels, rezeer thun indeefidooels ooff a perteecooler genereshun begeenning und indeeng zee treep. Und thees is essoomeeng thet ve-a cun feegoore-a oooot hoo tu hefe-a a pupooleshun leefe-a fur ixtended pereeuds ooff teeme-a oon a spece-a sheep und nut be-a keelled ooffff by uny oone-a ooff zee meelliuns ooff theengs in zee uneeferse-a thet threetee us oonce-a ve-a leefe-a zee seffety ooff Ierth's etmusphere-a.

Vhee I cunseeder thees, it depresses me-a a beet. Um de hur de hur de hur. Zee Iert, fest es it us oon zee hoomun scele-a, is nutheeng in cumpereesun veet zee seeze-a ooff oooor gelexy, und tu knoo thet I veell be-a furefer leemited by zee etmusphere-a ooff thees vetery ruck mekes me-a feel mure-a thun a beet cloostruphubeec vhee I stup und cunseeder. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp! I vunt my verp dreefe-a, demmeet!

Boot, ooff cuoorse-a, I cun't hefe-a my verp dreefe-a (oor, better yet, a TERDIS). Vunteeng it, theenking ebuoot hoo greet it vuoold be-a, und cunseedering hoo mooch less interesteeng leeffe-a is veethuoot it dues nut in uny vey coose-a zee levs ooff physeecs tu chunge-a und meke-a zee verp dreefe-a (oor TERDIS - meene-a vuoold be-a deesgooised es a feeling cebeenet) pusseeble-a.

Ookey, Mr. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp! Ermstrung, vhet dues thees hefe-a tu du veet unytheeng?

Vell, I'll tell yuu. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp!

Oone-a ooff zee mure-a freqooent ergooments thet I heer in fefur ooff debeteble-a prupuseeshuns is a fereeeshun oon my ergooment in fefur ooff verp dreefes und TERDISes. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Peuple-a mey phrese-a it deefffferently, zeey mey sey sumetheeng leeke-a "veethuoot X" vhere-a X mey meun unytheeng frum ghusts tu guds tu megeec, "zee vurld/uneeferse-a vuoold seem su culd/bureeng/uneenteresting/lunely thet I cun't eccept thet X isn't reel."

Vell, es steted, veethuoot verp dreefes, zee vurld seems tuu isuleted und cunstreeening fur me-a, boot thet duesn't meke-a verp dreefes reel, nur dues sume-a oone's tendency tu be-a culd/bured/uneenterested/lunesume-a meke-a vhetefer zeeur pet nushun is trooe-a. Leekooise-a, zee fect thet sumeune-a hes dedeeceted zeeur leeffe-a tu a felse-a premeese-a, vhetefer thet premeese-a mey be-a, duesn't in uny vey meke-a zee premeese-a trooe-a und mure-a thun zee fect thet peuple-a hefe-a dedeeceted zeeur leefes tu dreemeeng up methuds ooff fester-thun-leeght trefel hes mede-a thees a physeecel pusseebility. Bork bork bork!

Fur un ixemple-a ooff thees preenciple-a in ecshun, cunseeder sumetheeng thet heppened tu me-a beck in 2000. Un ecqooeeentunce-a et vurk esked iff I ves a Chreestiun. I respunded thet I ves nut. Um de hur de hur de hur. Zeey esked me-a vhy, und I repleeed thet I hed nefer seee uny persooeseefe-a ifeedence-a fur zee ixeestence-a ooff a gud ooff uny surt, mooch less zee Chreestiun Gud. Bork bork bork! Zeey zeen steted thet zeey hed a qooesshun thet, iff I unsvered it hunestly, vuoold breeng me-a tu Chreestiunity. Bork bork bork! I ves cooreeuoos, I reqooested thet zeey refeel thees qooesshun tu me-a. It ves thees:

"Dun't yuoo vunt tu spend un iterneety in zee bleess ooff Heefee?"

Clesseec Verp Dreefe-a Ergooment. Um de hur de hur de hur.

Du I feend zee idea ooff un iternelly bleessffool effterleeffe-a eppeeleeng? Yes. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Du I veesh thet zeere-a ves sooch a plece-a und thet I vuoold get tu gu zeere-a? Ebsulootely. Bork bork bork! Is thees desure-a ifeedence-a ooff it's ixeestence-a? Unffurtoonetely, nu.

Su, in zee ind, zee cu-vurker vhu veeshed tu cunfert me-a vent evey deeseppuinted. Bork bork bork! My desure-a fur zeere-a tu be-a a benefulent Gud und a Heefee dues nut prufeede-a ifeedence-a fur zee ixeestence-a ooff Keengdum Cume-a oor Gud. Bork bork bork! Und understund thet I em nut beeeng sercesteec here-a, I reelly du veesh thet zeere-a ves a benefulent Gud und a Heefee (hey, zeere-a hefe-a beee teemes vhee I joost veeshed thet I beleeefed veethuoot veeshing fur my beleeeffs tu be-a trooe-a), boot my veeshing fur it is seemply nut ifeedence-a thet it is trooe-a.

Zee seme-a is trooe-a ooff ghusts, psycheec pooers (vheech vuoold be-a tutelly buss...iff zeey ixeested, thet is), Reeeki, Beegffuut, und ell munner ooff oozeer theengs. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Zee beseec prublem is thet muny peuple-a dun't recugneeze-a thet zeey ere-a useeng a Verp Dreefe-a Ergooment ifee vhee zeey ere-a. Boot, perheps, iff yuoo pueent it oooot, yuoo'll hefe-a less freeend. Bork bork bork!...I meun, yuoo'll imprufe-a peuple's ebeelity tu theenk creeticelly ebuoot zeeur beleeeffs. Um gesh dee bork, bork!

The Warp Drive Argument

I want warp drive engines to be real.

You know, like in Star Trek, warp drive engines that will allow a star ship to move significantly faster than the speed of light, allowing us to travel to distant stars in a matter of days, or maybe even hours. I want to be able to get on board a star ship and travel vast distances, seeing what is out there, and if alien life exists, meet it.

This will not happen in my life time. In truth, it will probably never happen at all. The laws of physics being what they are, the odds of anyone alive today ever venturing out past our solar system are pretty much nil. Even if humanity does travel to distant stars, it'll likely have to be through something like generation ships - where a population that reproduces over the course of centuries travels, rather than individuals of a particular generation beginning and ending the trip. And this is assuming that we can figure out how to have a population live for extended periods of time on a space ship and not be killed off by any one of the millions of things in the universe that threaten us once we leave the safety of Earth's atmosphere.

When I consider this, it depresses me a bit. The Earth, vast as it us on the human scale, is nothing in comparison with the size of our galaxy, and to know that I will be forever limited by the atmosphere of this watery rock makes me feel more than a bit claustrophobic when I stop and consider. I want my warp drive, dammit!

But, of course, I can't have my warp drive (or, better yet, a TARDIS). Wanting it, thinking about how great it would be, and considering how much less interesting life is without it does not in any way cause the laws of physics to change and make the warp drive (or TARDIS - mine would be disguised as a filing cabinet) possible.

Okay, Mr. Armstrong, what does this have to do with anything?

Well, I'll tell you.

One of the more frequent arguments that I hear in favor of debatable propositions is a variation on my argument in favor of warp drives and TARDISes. People may phrase it differently, they may say something like "without X" where X may mean anything from ghosts to gods to magic, "the world/universe would seem so cold/boring/uninteresting/lonely that I can't accept that X isn't real."

Well, as stated, without warp drives, the world seems too isolated and constraining for me, but that doesn't make warp drives real, nor does some one's tendency to be cold/bored/uninterested/lonesome make whatever their pet notion is true. Likewise, the fact that someone has dedicated their life to a false premise, whatever that premise may be, doesn't in any way make the premise true and more than the fact that people have dedicated their lives to dreaming up methods of faster-than-light travel has made this a physical possibility.

For an example of this principle in action, consider something that happened to me back in 2000. An acquaintance at work asked if I was a Christian. I responded that I was not. They asked me why, and I replied that I had never seen any persuasive evidence for the existence of a god of any sort, much less the Christian God. They then stated that they had a question that, if I answered it honestly, would bring me to Christianity. I was curious, I requested that they reveal this question to me. It was this:

"Don't you want to spend an eternity in the bliss of Heaven?"

Classic Warp Drive Argument.

Do I find the idea of an eternally blissful afterlife appealing? Yes. Do I wish that there was such a place and that I would get to go there? Absolutely. Is this desire evidence of it's existence? Unfortunately, no.

So, in the end, the co-worker who wished to convert me went away disappointed. My desire for there to be a benevolent God and a Heaven does not provide evidence for the existence of Kingdom Come or God. And understand that I am not being sarcastic here, I really do wish that there was a benevolent God and a Heaven (hey, there have been times when I just wished that I believed without wishing for my beliefs to be true), but my wishing for it is simply not evidence that it is true.

The same is true of ghosts, psychic powers (which would be totally boss...if they existed, that is), Reiki, Bigfoot, and all manner of other things. The basic problem is that many people don't recognize that they are using a Warp Drive Argument even when they are. But, perhaps, if you point it out, you'll have less friend....I mean, you'll improve people's ability to think critically about their beliefs.