I’m a bit of a definition junkie. I think it comes from studying philosophy. It seems that most of the big questions are difficult to answer because the terms involved turn out to be so ill-defined. Thus much of the efforts in philosophy is not really aimed at answering the big questions, but precisely defining the words and concepts in the question. If that is achieved the answer usually falls right out.

So I’ve recently been thinking about the term “Godless” – often used as a derogatory term for agnostics and atheists. Literally it means “without god” but carries with it a very negative connotation. It suggests non-believers lack something or are missing something desirable. Think of the term ‘penniless’ for comparison.

That doesn’t accurately describe an atheist’s feeling on the matter at all. We do not feel like we are lacking anything for we don’t desire a god at all (such would be pointless as they are almost certainly fiction). I wanted a better term and found it in an unlikely place.

It turns out, couples who do not want children are in a similar situation. They are often described as being ‘childless’ though they don’t feel they are lacking anything. Thus they’ve adopted the term ‘childfree‘. Similarly, I’ve been using the term ‘godfree’.

Strictly speaking, ‘Godless’ and ‘godfree’ mean the same thing: “without god(s)”; though the capital ‘G’ implies monotheism and the lowercase is exclusive of polytheistic deities as well. Yet they have different connotations. Being something-less means one is without something desired. Being something-free means one is without something undesired. People who do not want caffeine in their soda will drink ‘caffeine-free’ soda, those who want children but are unable to have them are ‘childless’. Atheists, by and large, do not want any gods and do not have any. Thus the term ‘godfree’ is more appropriate.

It has occurred to me that precisely defining these terms in this way has a very interesting consequence. To understand it, you’ll have to adopt my point of view for a moment. Go ahead, it won’t hurt… There! A little uncomfortable, I’m sure, but you won’t have to wear it long. Now notice that there are no gods. Good. What’s that mean for religious people? They are without any gods for none exist but they desire a god (or gods). Which term, ‘Godless’ or ‘godfree’ is more appropriate? Using the definitions described above, you’ve guessed it….

…Religious people are the Godless ones!

Thanks for reading whether you’re godfree or Godless.

Scott posted one of those “learn more about you” questions on his blog and I decided to participate. This one is relatively simple:

Rules: Don’t take too long to think about it. Fifteen books you’ve read that will always stick with you. First fifteen you can recall in no more than 15 minutes.

1. Dune by Frank Herbert – Utterly compelling story that’s stuck with me
2. Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card – Another compelling story with a definite dark side
3. Snow Crash by Neil Stephenson – To call this one thought provoking is an understatement
4. Inferno by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle – Taught me that reading can be extremely fun
5. Watership Down by Richard Adams – Who new a story about rabbits could be so dramatic
6. Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous by George Berkeley – Taught me that the obviously absurd may not be as absurd as first thought
7. Meditations of First Philosophy by René Descartes – I learned that doubt is one of the best tools we have to create knowledge
8. The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan – I for one welcome our new corn overlords
9. Foundation Series by Isaac Asimov – Read these so long ago that I’ve forgotten much of thier content, but I remember the love I had for them
10. The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien – This has been read to me at least twice in my life. The level of intimacy created by such an act is profound
11. Lord of the Rings Trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien – These were also read to me
12. Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky – First classic that I choose to read
13. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins – Helped me refine my theological thinking and enabled me to be more out about my atheism
14. Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis – Reminded me that just because it’s Christian doesn’t automatically make it foolish
15. Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter – Felt like I was in the presence of a genius the entire time I read it. I wish I understood more of it

And I thought 15 would be difficult to come up with. They are listed in a very particular order – the order in which I thought of them. The downside is that since coming up with these initial ones, I keep thinking of so many more that have impacted my thinking. If these were listed by importance, I’d definitely have to include “The Man Who Mistook His Wife for His Hat” by Oliver Sacks, “Rethinking Life and Death” by Peter Singer, and “Utilitarianism” by John Stuart Mill. These books along with a few others in my list helped me rebuild a worldview after freeing myself from religion.

I’m sure there are so many others that slipped my mind today for whatever reason. What’s your list?

Kate Hopkins runs one of my favorite food blogs, Accidental Hedonist (second only to my close friend’s The Way the Cookie Crumbles). Hopkins is also the author of the overly-subtitled book: 99 Drams of Whiskey: The Accidental Hedonist’s Quest for the Perfect Shot and the History of the Drink. Back in the Spring, she posted an offer to her readers who have their own blogs: agree to dedicate a post to reviewing her new book and receive a free copy. Wait a moment. I like whiskey. I like books. I have a blog. So I requested a copy. Several weeks later, it arrives.

The book is equal parts travel log, history, and whiskey review. Hopkins’ writing style is informal, personal, and very easy to read. She seamlessly moves from, say, her visit to a distillery to the drink’s impact on local culture and laws then back to the distillery for the tasting. It felt like I was traveling with her to Ireland, Scotland, Canada, and America. All the while, we discussed the drink that we both love. This tone may be off-putting to those who are snobbish serious about whiskey but it suited me just fine. Taste is such a subjective experience that is unconsciously influenced by things other than the drink. I am skeptical that tasting ‘experts’ can objectively identify taste subtleties.

One aspect of the book that I value greatly is that Hopkins describes the context of every one of her whiskey tastings. I knew what her mood was, where she was, who she was with, how the whiskey was presented, etc. This is in stark contrast to the ‘professionals’ who all-too-often leave these things out claiming objectivity. Being aware of the entire situation definitely allowed me to better evaluate her opinions. Also helpful are the more formal reviews of some of the whiskeys interspersed with the text. This included a brief description followed by a section for the nose, taste, finish, and character.

I’ve done a little studying of whiskey’s history. Yet I was still able to learn a lot from 99 Drams. Most of my research has been around the history of the production of whiskey. Hopkins includes a history of cultural influences, taxation, the business history, the impact of the Temperance Movement in general and Prohibition in particular. It’s rocky history gave me an even grater appreciation for the drink.

I’m no stranger to whiskey (nor am I any kind of expert); it’s been my adult beverage of choice for a few years now. Yet I was able to learn many new things about it from 99 Drams of Whiskey. In addition to the historical aspects, I learned some commonalities about my favorite whiskeys and that there is an emerging approach to distilling that is comparable to micro-brewing for beers. I’ve even identified a few whiskeys I’d like to try. Overall, I enjoyed Hopkins’ book very much and would recommend it to anyone who enjoys or is even interested in whiskey. Everyone but the snobs; they’ll just get annoyed.

… if what you’re mocking is pseudoscience and/or superstition. The target of this lovely video? Homeopathy.

Found this on Bad Astronomy via Weird Things.