Ethnographic Research (Help please!)

[Mister Agenda]

Greetings! 

I'm a master's seminary student currently writing an ethnography focusing on the worldviews of atheists and agnostics in the 18-26 age range. I must interview a number of atheists and agnostics to complete this assignment, so I would be extremely grateful to anyone who would be willing to answer some questions for me. 

If you are interested, please respond to the following list of questions (or as many as you can!) in a single post. Thank you in advance for your time and willingness to help me out with this project! 

Here goes:

What is your age?
56
What is your current academic status (student, former student, alumnus, etc.)?
Alumnus
(If applicable) How far along in your studies are you?
Graduated with a BA
What is (was) your major?
Psychology
Why are (were) you in college?
I wanted to become a psychologist
What are your future plans/goals?
Don't get fired and retire by sixty while I'm still (hopefully) able to enjoy the rest of my life
Briefly describe your family background.
Oldest of two brothers and a sister, a half-brother, three half-sisters, two step-brothers, and two step-sisters.
Social Structures
Describe your current relationship with your family.
Fairly close to my sister and brother and two of my half-sisters. I'm out with my family and all my dad talks about when I visit is religion and conspiracies, so I usually don't go to visit him more than every other year.
Describe your social life.
I founded the Freethought Society of the Midlands, and met a lot of my friends that way. Though an introvert, I am usually at an event or gathering (or two) every week. My girlfriend has lived with me since last March.
Are close relationships with friends/family important? Why or why not?
They're nice, but I haven't found them important. Filling in gaps in the family department is what friends are for. Many of my family interactions have involved being hit up for money, so the 'family is always there for you' thing usually works against me.
Which is more important: the personal life or the professional life?
Personal life. My job is okay, and someone has to do it, and occasionally I get to help people out; but my off-duty activities are more important to me. For instance, I should be attending to work tasks right now.
Ontological
What is the source of power and success?
Luck, effort, social skills, and intelligence, probably in that order most of the time.
What is the origin of the universe?
I don't know, but there are plausible natural explanations (plausible to physicists, at least). If anyone else thinks they know, they are mistaken, at best.
What is the origin and destiny of humanity?
According to the evidence, we evolved from a common ancestor with other apes to be bipedal, dexterous, lingual, smarter, and more social. Eventually humanity will no longer exist, but we've reached a point where how much longer we'll be around is at least somewhat in our control. I'm hoping our descendants will be found all over the galaxy in a few million years and that they will be kinder than us. That would be cool.
Is there any form of spiritual dimension of reality? If so, briefly describe it.
I don't know. 'Spiritual' is a very vague term. If you consider whatever the sum of our emotions, identity, memories, personalities, sense of self and agency and thoughts to be as a 'spirit' or 'soul', I can agree we have such a thing in that sense. I'd be very surprised if any of it survives brain death, I think all that is what our brains are doing, and when it stops, the 'soul process' stops too. I would be surprised if there is any 'spirit plane' our souls can visit or wind up in when we die, unless the transhumanists are right and we build our own...such a thing couldn't possibly be truly eternal, though.
Do incorporeal beings exist?
Seems highly unlikely, especially considering how much time and effort has gone into trying to prove such things exist with no success.
How do you define ‘God’?
At a minimum, a 'capital G God' would be a superhuman personal being that created the universe, preferably on purpose.
How do you define ‘truth’?
If a belief conforms to what is real, it is true. Truth isn't at odds with evidence or logic, and probably shouldn't have a 'capital T' in the middle of a sentence.
Epistemological
How do you know what is true?
The main thing is to have a rational way of determining what probably isn't true and verifying what is, so you have better odds of having beliefs that are true. You should keep your axioms to a minimum (like the reality I observe with my senses really exists, though my perception of it is incomplete and prone to error). Everyone has false beliefs of which they are unaware, but if you scrutinize a belief with skepticism and honesty and it stands up to attempts to falsify it, you've done due diligence. You can waste your life chasing perfect truth, and as imperfect beings, we have to settle for imperfection in our truths with the possible exception of sound, valid, syllogisms. I think, therefore I am, I think.
Is there an objective standard by virtue of which one can distinguish truth and falsity, and if so, why is it a reliable standard?
Evidence and logic (with emphasis on the former) are as objective as we can get. With evidence, ultimately, the universe is the standard, and whether it's reliable or not (seems to be pretty fuzzy at the Planck level), it's all the evidence we have. Logic is helpful for weeding out errors in our thinking, but you can't get anything out of it you didn't put into it.
Assuming no objective truth exists, how can you correctly form and evaluate truth claims?
We have trouble accurately determining it, but some things are the case and some things aren't, 'no objective truth' doesn't seem to be a justifiable conclusion, let alone a reasonable assumption. I am not a married bachelor. Circles aren't square. Less tautologically, the earth is roughly spheroid and is warmed by the sun, which is a star that the earth and a number of other objects orbits. Evaluate truth claims by following the evidence and making sure your thinking is not fallacious.
Axiology
Are morals and ethics subjective or objective?
Any system of reasoning requires axioms. If you accept a coupe of moral axioms, like 'human flourishing is good' and 'virtue is its own reward', moral reasoning can derive guidelines that objectively follow from that (rampant and indiscriminate assault, murder, rape, and theft are not conducive to human flourishing and should be curtailed for the benefit of society, and you're missing out on a lot of rewarding virtue, to boot; for example). It's not all or nothing though, even with objectively derived morals (there's more than one way to skin a cat). In ancient Israel, for instance, it was the custom for a surviving brother to sire an heir for his dead brother with his brother's widow. The obligation was real and you were doing your brother's widow and the memory of your brother a disservice by failing to do so...but the basis for the obligation was dependent on a fairly arbitrary cultural basis. In the modern Western world, it's not only not an obligation, it's more than a little creepy. There's no escaping the subjective element of morality, because we are beings that can only experience things subjectively. Even if you settle on some sort of objective standard, the decision to do that can only be reached subjectively. All we can do is our best, and it's wise to understand our limits.
How do you know right from wrong?
Innate moral sentiment (such as our senses of empathy, fairness, and reciprocity common to social primates) modified by experience, upbringing, and moral reasoning.
Can science explain the origin of moral values and concerns? How so?
We're a social species, and social species have rules that keep their society functioning at least well enough not to collapse; or at least those that fail to do so collapse and go extinct or become 'no longer social'. Even wolf packs have rules, though they're much more instinctive than ours. If you were the only person on earth, you'd probably come to a bad end because it's very hard for humans to live alone indefinitely, but morality would no longer apply to you without any societal context based on how our decisions affect others.
How would you describe a “good person”? A “bad person”?
A good person refrains from harming others, and is kinder than average. A bad person doesn't mind harming others if they benefit from it or if they just feel like it, and is less kind than average. Harm can take many forms, and a good person who is wise will avoid harming others in emotional ways or even helping them in ways that are counterproductive in the long run. A wise bad person will avoid suffering the consequences of the harm they cause to others, even refraining from causing harm if they don't think they can 'get away with it'.
What would an “ideal society” look like?
Probably a lot like an ideal family. The more understanding ourselves and each other and helping each other out is favored over getting ahead, getting even, and establishing social dominance, the more likely we will be to achieve a society closer to ideal.
Do people act purely out of self-interest?
As I've said elsewhere, virtue is its own reward. Being charitable is one of the most emotionally satisfying things we can do. We do what we do because we find it rewarding, whether materially, socially, intellectually, sensually, or just for the endorphins. It's called psychological egoism and it basically means no one does anything purely without benefit to themselves. Some people think that's selfishness, but I can imagine very little more creepy than someone who does good despite getting nothing at all from doing so, not even satisfaction or warm fuzzies or alleviation of guilt.
What is the most important moral attribute (i.e. love, justice, equality, selflessness, etc.)? How do you define it?
They're all important, and having them all in good measure is the foundation of moral character. They don't have to be equal in measure, there are a lot of us, we can afford to emphasize our strengths. One person may be particularly kind, another particularly fair. Maybe the starting point should be that old oath: first, do no harm.
What is mankind’s single biggest problem?
Ignorance, particularly of ourselves, particularly of our own ignorance.
Is there a solution to this problem, and if so, what is it?
It might be intractable. Right now, in the USA at least, there doesn't seem to be much demand for knowledge, let alone self knowledge. It will never happen until enough people want to take a long, hard, honest look at themselves and their beliefs and convictions and learn to be kinder to each other and themselves.