Editing Cosmos for Comfort

The new Cosmos miniseries, hosted by the heir to Carl Sagan’s science-communicator skills, Neil deGrasse Tyson, premiered last Sunday. The series is off to a great start, I think, but others seem to have their doubts about the show’s overt bias towards science. In fact, a Fox affiliate in Oklahoma allegedly edited out the fifteen seconds of the hour-long episode that discussed devil-spawning evolution, in favor of an evening news promo.

The following weeks are going to be an interesting time for that station if they’re going to stick to their guns on this. I hope the editor gets paid overtime. I’m sure I’m not the only person to think of posting this, but there’s really only one appropriate response to the station’s editing decision, and it is this:

My sincerest apologies to all Oklahomans who aren’t into this sort of thing. Believe me, you have kindred spirits down here in Texas.

Share

If You’re Reading This, Then the Viking Apocalypse Probably Didn’t Happen

Emil Doepler [Public domain], via Wikimedia CommonsAccording to some aficionados of Norse mythology, today is predicted to be the day of Ragnarök, the epic final battle ‘twixt good and evil.

I’m scheduling this post for 6:00 p.m. Central Standard Time, Saturday, February 22, 2014. In Sweden right now, it’s already Sunday the 23rd. If Scandinavia is still a cold, dark place with mostly blonde people enjoying a high standard of living and eating lots of mackerel—as opposed to the scene of an Æsir vs. Jötnar battle royale—then we can probably all breathe easy. We have more to fear from coal slurry than the trickster god Loki.

Keep an eye out for giant serpents, though, just in case…

I mean, Harold Camping and all those people who misinterpreted the Mayans were wrong, but maybe third time’s a charm?

Photo credit: Emil Doepler [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

Share

Many Ways to Answer Creationists’ Questions

By Pelf at en.wikipedia [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Yup. All the way down.

You may or may not have heard about the debate last week between Bill Nye (a/k/a the Science Guy) and Ken Ham (a/k/a [bleep]) regarding evolution and creationism. Well, it was sort of a debate and it was sort of on that topic. From what I’ve read, Nye took the opportunity to make an impassioned and eloquent plea for science education, while Ham tried to focus on how evolution can’t prove how life began (no one ever said it could.) I don’t know if anyone had their minds changed, but I do appreciate that Bill Nye is out there fighting the good fight. Ham was going to claim this as a win no matter what happened.

An interesting thing happened after the debate, though. A BuzzFeed staffer asked creationists in the audience to write down questions, comments, etc., which he published as a listicle entitled “22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution.”

I admit that the questions/comments mostly just annoyed me, because it’s the same thing again and again, e.g. “Are you scared of a Divine Creator?” Luckily, it’s not even remotely up to me to respond to these questions. The responses people have written have ranged from the derisive to the snarky to the earnestly helpful. I’ll start with that last category.

Phil Plait, of Bad Astronomy fame, took the time to answer all 22 questions on Slate, treating the questions, and the questioners, with respect and dignity: Continue reading

Share

This Week in WTF, February 7, 2014

– You’re doing it wrong: Apparently some Mormons think that masturbation (or online pornography) is equivalent to what appears to be the Bastogne campaign from the Battle of the Bulge during World War II (h/t Jason).

Now I have to laugh because I said “bulge.”

– Is that a piranha in your pocket, or are—DEAR SWEET MOTHER OF GOD!!!!!!!! Did you know that piranhas are illegal in at least 25 U.S. states? (Including Texas, under Administrative Code Rule 57.111(15)(F)whew!) You might wonder why that’s even necessary, because who would want to bring such a notorious killing machine into—oh, I see:

Continue reading

Share

Did Someone Say Slippery Slope?

Murder in the House by Jakub Schikaneder [Public domain], via Wikimedia CommonsIn case you were worried about all those religious exemption cases (e.g. Hobby Lobby, etc.) creating some sort of slippery slope towards justifying all sorts of otherwise-unlawful acts in the name of sincere religious beliefs, you might be on to something: convicted (and admitted) murderer Scott Roeder wants his murder conviction reduced to voluntary manslaughter because, basically, of his religious beliefs.

Almost five years ago, the life of a man – a physician and father of four widely regarded as kind, compassionate, and dedicated to his patients – was abruptly ended. On a Sunday in late May of 2009, while Dr. George Tiller handed out flyers at his church in Wichita, Kansas, he was shot in the head at point blank range by Scott Roeder. What had Dr. Tiller done wrong? He was a doctor who provided legal, constitutionally protected medical care to women. But all Scott Roeder saw was an abortion provider, and Scott Roeder believes that abortion is wrong.

So he killed him.

Roeder has already been convicted of first-degree murder. But today the Kansas Supreme Court will hear further arguments about Roeder’s crime. Though he fully admits to killing Dr. Tiller, Roeder appealed his conviction, and is asserting that he should be guilty only of voluntary manslaughter. In Kansas, voluntary manslaughter, an “imperfect self-defense,” allows a defendant to argue that he truly believed in the moment that he was justified in using deadly force. In this case, that means that Roeder is asking for a lesser sentence for killing Dr. Tiller because Roeder truly believes that abortion is wrong. As my colleagues have written before, Roeder is asking the court to conclude that “vigilantism is okay if you really mean it.”

Under Kansas law, “voluntary manslaughter” is defined in part as: Continue reading

Share

The “Purpose” Argument

By ja:User:Sanjo (Own work (Own Photo)) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia CommonsThe “purpose” argument, as I call it, states that without God (or whatever deity, but it’s usually the standard-issue God of the Judeo-Christian tradition), life can have no purpose or meaning. My usual exasperated response is that anyone who thinks this way isn’t trying very hard, and it boggles the mind that atheists are supposed to be the cynical ones. Jerry Coyne offers an excellent response to a recent rehash of this argument, but Ed Brayton  explains why it’s just plain crap:

So what? It’s not an argument for why this god who provides us with meaning and purpose does exist, it’s an argument for why the person making it hopes such a god exists. If it does not, should we pretend it does and create some diving meaning and purpose that does not exist? Should we all just agree to tell a big lie? Or should we do what we have always done, whether one believes in such a god or not, and find meaning and purpose in the living of our lives?
The lack of some universal meaning or purpose does not mean that our lives don’t have meaning or purpose. It just means that we have at least some opportunity to determine meaning and purpose for ourselves rather than having some non-existent divine being decide it for us. And far from being a depressing fact, that is a liberating one.

I don’t know how it works for other people, but “belief,” such as it is, is not a choice for me. It’s something that requires evidence, reason, and compassion. I exist, and I have the capacity to make the world a better place for the people that I love, which includes myself. I have the opportunity to love, laugh, see beauty, eat cupcakes, and rub dogs’ bellies. The fact that I have only a limited time to do all of these things make the experiences more meaningful and purposeful, not less, because in all of the universe, the beauty I see, experience, and create is unique.

Saying that the world would be a better place if I believed in a particular god is a dubious proposition in and of itself, but it also says nothing whatsoever about whether that god is actually real. Besides that, it takes away from time we all could be spending living.

Photo credit: By ja:User:Sanjo (Own work (Own Photo)) [GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

Share

A Few Flowcharts on Faith

The flowchart is among the greatest tools for facilitating human understanding of an issue, second perhaps only to the limerick. While exploring the arguments people are making (apparently with a straight face) about how other people entering into marriages with members of the same sex somehow infringes on their rights (to live in a society in which they never have to think about two dudes kissing, I guess), I came across several helpful flowcharts that I am reproducing here in the fun and happy spirit of Fair Use.

The first, dealing with the purportedly sinful nature of homosexuality, was posted by Marc Barnes to the Bad Catholic blog on Patheos:

flowchart_1

He goes into some great detail about exactly why all of these arguments (except the “icky” one) are wrong, and it’s all worth a read.

The second flowchart comes to us from James F. McGrath, who blogs at Exploring Our Matrix on Patheos. He addresses the question of whether a given Bible verse is intended to be taken literally or metaphorically:

Is-this-Bible-verse-a-metaphor

He adds:

Terry Firma shared the above image. It helpfully illustrates what is really going on in fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Their view should never be referred to as “Biblical literalism” since it only insists on the Bible being literally true when it is desirable to do so, and not where it is “obviously” a metaphor, such as the dome over the Earth, or in its teaching about gluttony or giving up all your possessions. Calling the fundamentalist view “Biblical literalism” makes it seem as though they have a high ground of sorts, however dubious it might be. But it is not as though they are being consistent while others are not. Quite the contrary. Indeed, that fundamentalists have managed to convince so many people (including themselves!) that they are in fact “Biblical literalists” deserves to be acclaimed as one of the greatest PR exercises in modern history.

Claiming that something is just a metaphor is usually a trick pulled out when a religious argument dead-ends, when science overwhelms a religious claim, or when someone learns that they won’t actually be going to Salt Lake City. When it becomes more convenient to call it a metaphor, in other words.

Share

Stay Classy, Utah County Clerks (UPDATED x 2)

And they’ll know we are Christians by our love, by our love…

A county clerk and chief deputy clerk in New Mexico resigned from their positions after the state’s Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage last week.

Roosevelt County Clerk Donna Carpenter and Deputy Clerk Janet Collins resigned from their posts early Friday morning, one day after the state’s Supreme Court ruled that barring same-sex couples from marrying violates the state’s constitutional right to equal protection.

Although an official reason for the clerks’ resignation has not been provided, county commissioners have told the Associated Press and other media outlets that both Collins and Carpenter made their intention of quitting clear, should same-sex marriage be legalized in the state.

Roosevelt County Commissioner Bill Cathey told AP that the two had made it apparent that they would quit “rather than be associated with that … she told us in the past that’s what she would do,” he said. “… I am personally very disappointed in the decision of the judges, and I don’t blame our clerk for doing what she did.”

***

Commissioner Jake Lopez, a Democrat, added to the ABQ Journal that the clerk and her deputy also told him their personal values interfered with their distributing of same-sex marriage licenses. “[Carpenter] said she would rather resign because she wasn’t going to provide any licenses to people who marry like that.”

***

Although gay activist groups in the state lauded the [Utah] Supreme Court’s decision, supporters of traditional marriage have vowed to continue fighting for a ban on same-sex marriage. Following last week’s court ruling, State Sen. Bill Sharer (R-Farmington) said that when the legislature reconvenes in January he will propose a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, and if the amendment is adopted by state legislature it will then be voted on by New Mexico’s residents.

“We shall continue the debate,” Sharer said in a statement following the ruling. “Until the people accept it, it is not settled.” Gov. Susana Martinez, a Republican, also said in a statement that she would prefer the issue of same-sex marriage be left to the voters, not the courts.

…Yes they’ll know we are Christians by our love.

Still, better that they quit than demand special religious exemptions to their job duties.

UPDATE (12/26/2013): Via my alert and fair-minded friend Ethan:

OK, you need to be fair; I’ve read stories of other county clerks there working through lunches and making extra efforts to process the large number of marriage license applications that were coming through.

UPDATE (12/30/2013): As of December 30, all of Utah’s county clerks have agreed to follow the court’s ruling, i.e. follow the law, i.e. do their jobs.

Share

I Am an Atheist Who Celebrates Christmas

By Anita Mishra (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia CommonsDeal with it.

And a happy winter-holiday-of-your-choice to you and yours!

Photo credit: By Anita Mishra (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

Share