TheoLogic™ works everywhere!

Perhaps you’ve wondered about the true and factual foundations of fairy tales other than the biblical ones. It turns out that the reasoning of theologians is universally applicable!

It is time to set the record straight, and affirm the historical Truth of the Goldilocks narrative. I intend to show that it is overwhelmingly more likely that the Goldilocks story is literally true than not, and not only does it constitute Warranted True Belief, it is *necessarily* true in a deep ontological and cosmological sense, i.e. if the G3B model was any different, our universe would be deeply inimical to human life, and we would not even be here.

Wow. Since universality is usually considered a good property of a philosophy, this must be a point in favor of TheoLogic™.

Springtime for Sarah

There’s a Sarah Palin “documentary” out, called The Undefeated, and it’s a weird example of conservatives trying to create a new alternative reality again. First, she was defeated: notice that it isn’t Vice President Palin. Second, the professional reviewers are all panning the movie — it’s a hagiographic mess. But the crazies on the right must salvage the reputation of the movie, for great honor.

The tactic they’ve chosen is to claim that it has tremendous grass roots appeal and that audiences have been flocking to it. Right-wing bloggers have been shouting that “‘The Undefeated’ Roars to Big Opening Day…Theaters Sell Out From Atlanta to Orange County!”

Which is hilarious. It opened on ten (10!) screens, and they’re desperately comparing it to Transformers and Harry Potter, the two big blockbusters playing now.

I’m finding it wonderfully encouraging. If you really want a negligible flop in the world of popular media, make it about right-wing heroes like Ayn Rand or Sarah Palin. I wonder if the makers sold 25,000% of the profits to investors before it opened?

There must be a gene for cussedness

I have a daughter. She’s all smart and growed up, and she has moved away to the distant land of Wisconsin, where she has a real, full-time job and a car and an apartment and a cat and ferrets and a boyfriend, and she thinks for herself (like I told her to!) and she has opinions I mostly agree with — she’s a freethinker and rationalist — and some I disagree with — she’s not a fan of the atheist movement and she’s had a bit more philosophy in her brain than I think is entirely good for her. She’s appeared a few times in the comments here, with much clashiness, and she has her own blog, where she occasionally writes about what she’s thinking.

And now Uncommon Descent praises her. Boy, are they barking up the wrong tree: she’s no friend of Intelligent Design creationism, and if they like that she’s willing to criticize atheists, it’s only because she doesn’t consider creationists even worth arguing over. And they praise her in such a condescending way: she’s just a “kid”, and they mainly seem dazzled that a daughter of a notorious “Darwinist” doesn’t fawn over Sam Harris.

The post that drew their attention is a scathing critique of The Moral Landscape. I’ve talked with Skatje now and then about the book — I’ve been interested but vaguely uncomfortable with it, and have felt a gnawing obligation (but no enthusiasm) to sit down and read it through carefully, and I think she knows that my usual reaction to it is a moan and an eye-roll. But she is the one who worked her way through the book thoroughly and articulated her own arguments. I think her short summary that it should have been subtitled “How science can help us achieve the things we’ve already chosen to value” is brilliant and perfect. I’m impressed that she also had the gumption to disagree with Sean Carroll’s criticism of the premise. I disagree that the book panders to “atheists with very little knowledge of philosophy”: most of the atheists I know, when The Moral Landscape is brought up, tend to shuffle about uncomfortably and try to change the subject — it isn’t at all popular with this particular community.

It’s a good, solid review, and it’s entirely her own work. I’m sure it’s incredibly annoying to her to be saddled with this mostly irrelevant connection to me, and it’s also annoying to me to have an intelligent, thoughtful daughter whose work I can’t reference without the awkward implication of paternalism. Read it because it’s good, not because half her chromosomes came from me.

Also, infuriating as praise from creationists is, even worse is the godless moron in her comments who patronizingly rebukes her for daring to criticize Dr. Harris.

So stop acting like a big smart girl while trying to choke scientific progression, because no one cares about your relationship with your daddy.

I feel a bit of fatherly anger when I read that, and I also feel some dismay that atheism has within its ranks such supercilious, sexist inanity (but then, I’ve been seeing a lot of that lately). The one thing that tempers that anger is that I know Skatje’s strong enough to smack that fool down.

Monckton rebuked

Christopher Monckton, the lunatic climate change denier, has been trying to trade on his false authority, claiming to be a member of the House of Lords.

When asked by ABC Sydney’s Adam Spencer if he was a member, he [Monckton] said: “Yes, but without the right to sit or vote … [The Lords] have not yet repealed by act of parliament the letters patent creating the peerage and until they do I am a member of the house, as my passport records. It says I am the Right Honourable Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. So get used to it.”

So the House of Lords has published a formal reply.

The letter, sent by David Beamish, clerk of the parliaments, to Monckton last Friday and now published on the Lords’ website, states: “You are not and have never been a member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters patent, a peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgement in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office).”

Get used to it, Monckton.

I don’t get the point, though…should anyone be swayed by a peerage or an appointment to a congregation of upper class twits, anyway?

I get email

I know the flaming crazy emails are more fun, but here’s one of the nice ones I also get. It’s also a little bit unusual in that the writer isn’t a Christian.

Hello professor,

I’m a long time reader first time writer. I’ve been following your blog for over 3 years now, and you have been one of the main influential characters that aided me in shedding my old Muslim beliefs and embrace rationality and skepticism. I want to take this opportunity to thank you for, well, being you really! I found your blog during the creationists hype back in 07/08, and was quite amused at your style of writing and boldness in calling bullshit what it is.

I used to be a “Muslim by flavor”; never really believed in hell, I agreed with the scientific biography of the cosmos but would say “it’s all guided”. I even rationalized certain theological dilemmas such as the problem of evil and logical contradictions when dealing with omnipotence/omniscience, and just shook my head in shame, silently, when fundies did terrible crimes in the name of Allah.

Long story short, as I moved away from home in Jordan and made it to the US and then Europe, what was previously censored and unreachable became available. It was when I finished watching Carl Sagan’s Cosmos in 09 that finally declared to myself: “no more bullshit!”. Life has been quite a joy since.

I’d like to thank you again for your passion, your words and your works, and assure you (in case there was a shred of doubt) that what you’re doing is leaving a positive impact on our planet. I wish you many years of furiously nifty posts, and when the time come to pass the banner that you’d have a protégé who’d live up to fit the shoes you leave behind.

It’s always good to be reminded that that the Islamic world is also full of intelligent and secular people.

I’m in the Bible?

A reader ran my name through one of those bible code programs — you know, those really silly exercises in goofy divination that juggles lines of the bible around to find some arrangement that reveals words and phrases — and it turns out I’m in there. See?

i-c8677422c461a1fc2777059ed85f6743-biblecode1.jpeg

Gosh, I guess the Bible must be true then.

Then the next step in this program is that it extracts a numerically related verse, somehow, that tells you deep things about the word in question. This is me:

i-7f8f90521cb6f8bb68be995355604c6a-biblecode2.jpeg

Respect my biblical authoritah! My very, very tired biblical authoritah…we got home from TAM at 4am, which means my brain is almost misfiring enough to find bible code crap somewhat weakly interesting. Almost.


Another reader sent me a different scan using the same software.

i-5a01596b8cad8cca98922bb966750673-biblecode3.jpeg

I like this one better.