I almost completely missed the meteoric career of Joe Schmid!

Joe Schmid’s new god

Joe Schmid was, I hear, a popular atheist YouTuber whose videos I never watched, except one. Belatedly, people told me he provided good philosophical support for atheism, and I was never into that philosophical angle — I’m more of a naturalist, materialist atheist who relies on science. But that’s OK! We need all kinds. Except, too late, he recently announced that he was no longer an atheist. He’s a hard-core Catholic now.

I can’t say that I regret the loss. The one time I listened to him, he sounded like a babbling philbro idiot, and he and Alex O’Connor destroyed their own reputations as far as I’m concerned. I’m not actually surprised after that performance that he has now declared himself a Catholic.

Here, you can enjoy his antic, demented announcement if you want…or skip the goofy histrionics and I’ll just summarize it.

He was brought up in a Catholic family, and attended a conservative Catholic school, and became an atheist because of evolution, of all things. He doesn’t seem to know much science, and elected to go to grad school in philosophy. He was an atheist because evolution seemed so wasteful and cruel (remember that for a minute), and he couldn’t believe a good god had created humans by virtue of that bloody meatgrinder. That’s not a good reason to become an atheist, but OK, it takes all kinds.

He has since learned about fine tuning and theistic evolution, which removed that objection to god-belief, because he’s an idiot. The fine tuning argument is just an argument from ignorance, where he can’t imagine how natural laws could generate complex life without a god rigging the rules to enable living things to arise in tiny, specific environments, like Earth. It might seem like a good excuse to those with a predisposition to believing in intelligent design, but most scientists find the arguments unbelievable and unsupported.

But hold on to your hats, the arguments are going to get worse and worse.

The next reason he gives for believing in god is miracles, miracles that he claims are supported by physical evidence and thousands of eyewitness accounts. That lots of people who share a common belief in supernatural phenomena claim that they saw a miracle like, say Fatima manifesting in the sky, or that they knew a guy who knew a guy whose cancer went into remission after a prayer was said over him, means nothing, but they’re enough to convince gullible Joe that something metaphysical, not psychological, had to have happened.

That’s weak. But then just to prove he doesn’t have a skeptical bone in his body, his next proof of god is Padre Pio, an old fraud whose schtick was to wave around bloody wounds in his hands and feet, stigmata like those that would have been present in his crucified Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. We aren’t supposed to wonder why a god would poke bleeding holes into a priest, he just did. It’s about the most useless, pointless miracle ever, but it was enough to convince Joe Schmid that the Catholic god existed. What a rube.

But the next ‘miracle’ is the worst of all. He cites the story of St. Maria Goretta. Holy fuck, this is classically Catholic sickness.

Maria Goretta was an 11 year old girl, a virgin (it’s very important that she was a virgin, otherwise she wouldn’t have been sainted). She was attacked by a 20 year old man who demanded sex from her, which she refused (also important, this is a story about chastity), so he stabbed her with an awl 14 times. She survived for a little while, giving the local doctors time to operate on her multiple times, without anesthetic, and she suffered horribly a long tortuous painful death, but the doctors, all male, claim that she had said, while reduced to screaming, unimaginable pain, that she forgave her attacker. Yeah, right, and Joe Schmid would consider this a documented miracle.

Joe Schmid calls this a profound and beautiful story. Fuck you, Joe Schmid, there’s nothing beautiful about a young girl being tortured to death, you sadistic sick fuck. Recall, though, that he had become an atheist because of the abstract idea of generations of organisms dying over the long course of history, a wasteful and cruel process that he couldn’t imaging a good god presiding over; I guess it wasn’t personal and brutal enough to bring him to the joy of loving a personal, vicious god. I can tell that he had been brought up on the lives of Catholic saints and martyrs, standard training for Catholic children in the deep horrors of their hateful religion. He’s just returning to his youthful indoctrination in torture porn.

I have no problem with people returning to the comforting faith of their youth; I can understand some of the appeal of ritual, certainty, and community. I have no sympathy for people returning to a cult because they were inspired by a horrific tale about torturing a child.

Oh well, his career as an atheist is dead at last. I’m sure his star will be ascending among primitive, psychopathic religious adherents.

Also, I thought his weirdly frantic performance in the above half-hour long video was off-putting enough, but would you believe his next couple of videos, in which he tries to provide a more detailed justification for his freaky beliefs, are 7 and 10 hours long. No, I haven’t watched them, nor will I. There’s something wrong with that boy.

Have you been wondering what Ken Ham thinks of Dolly Parton?

No? I don’t blame you. He’s a rather repellent character who always gets everything wrong.

In case you don’t bother to watch that video (you are very wise), he cites the fact that she was a Christian, but one who tolerates LGBT people, and even wishes them happiness. God hates gays! That’s not an interpretation, according to Ham, it’s literally a commandment.

Conversely, I found Parton’s simple Christianity to be silly, but that didn’t matter. She lived a life of joy and kindness, and if that wasn’t enough to get her into Christian heaven, then that’s just another reason Christianity is wrong.

Who would you choose to represent your beliefs, Ken or Dolly? The answer ought to be clear.

Is there a prize for bad apologetics?

The YouTube algorithm chose to stick a video titled What’s your best two minute apologetic? in my face. I expected the usual nonsense, but was surprised to see something novel. It’s even more stupid than the usual fare, but at least this guy is attaching his name to this foolishness openly.

OK, it starts out all right.

I typically don’t like apologetics. It’s just not my thing. It doesn’t feel like a great, I don’t know, if someone is ready to look into Christianity, and come into it and genuinely search into it, they will. I don’t like apologetics in the sense of trying to argue people into we’re right, you’re wrong, like believe what we believe. I don’t like that but, you know, I kind of have to have some reason to believe what I believe, so someone asked me recently, why are you still a Christian? Why do you believe in Jesus? Um, and, like, not in like a motive sense, which I addressed a couple of videos ago, but like, why. Why specifically god, what’s your best argument for god, for Christianity, or for Jesus?

Hackles raised at the claim that he doesn’t like apologetics but is making an apologetics video anyway, but I think it’s fair that he’s just trying to explain his personal rationale, rather than doing it to convert others. Everyone should feel free to express their ideas, especially if they’re not trying to browbeat others with them.

Unfortunately, his ideas are stupid and ill-informed.

And I think that the best one to me is looking at history itself since Jesus. It is literally impossible to imagine what the world would be like if Jesus had never existed. It is literally impossible. We, because, because Jesus, and by extension the new testament and the Bible and Christianity as a whole has so shaped the entire face, definitely of the West and peripherally, at least, of, um, the global south and the east, so. So much that we can’t. We can’t imagine what 2026 would look like if Jesus had never existed.

His key point is that he believes in Jesus because his imagination failed. Approximately 6 billion people do not believe in Jesus, and about 15% of the world population are atheist, but this guy can’t imagine what the world would be like if nobody believed in his personal mythology. I agree that Christianity has had an impact on the world, but so has Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism. Being impressed by a contingent fact of history as a justification for your specific religion is just weird.

We also discover that this guy who claims history is the best evidence for his beliefs doesn’t know much of anything about history.

Like, we can’t imagine it, and it’s because so many things shifted because Jesus existed. And Jesus keep in mind, was not an emperor, not a warlord, not a leader, not a noble, not a writer, not anything that everyone else in history is known for and remembered for. He’s a traveling homeless preacher from the backwoods Nazareth in some small little Roman state. And shaped the entire world, including taking over the entire Roman empire in less than 300 years, without violence, without conquering, without, you know, literally just the germ of an idea, um, as well of course the power and the spirit of God, uh, moving through his people in that short amount of time to where we are today 2000 years later, where it’s transformed the entire face of the world. And I think that that is beautiful in the sense that true Christianity, yes, it’s been misused so many times, obviously, but true Christianity done right, done lovingly, done well, um, woos people to come to it. Um, and the spirit calls people, and it brings life to people. And that’s how the world is transformed. And that is what has shaped the world for 2000 years. And I think it’s really hard to argue against that. So it’s not necessarily an argument for divinity, but just the sheer fact that one person, a little nobody, shaped the entire world 2000 years later is massive to me. What do you guys think?

This bit reminds me of Islamic apologetics, where they insist that Mohammed was illiterate and unaware of the greater intellectual background of his time, therefore making his accomplishments all the more remarkable. The fact that Jesus wasn’t an emperor means the success of his philosophy was a miracle, as long as we disregard the existence of successful proselytizers like Paul and the absorption of Christianity into the dominant power structure of the time, the Roman empire.

You know who else must be beyond this bozo’s imagination? Karl Marx. A mere philosopher, and yet today 1.5 billion people live in communist countries. Isn’t it amazing that one person, a little nobody, shaped the entire world in only about 150 years? What took Jesus so long? It’s not necessarily an argument for Marx’s divinity, but I’m just saying maybe we should all dedicate our lives to praising him.

It’s also convenient that the apologist brings up the “no true Christian” fallacy. What fraction of the world is practicing True Christianity™? I think that undercuts his claim that Jesus reshaped the whole world, since the overwhelming percentage of believers are not going to be True Christians™ — some wicked corrupters have apparently hijacked Jesus’ version of Christianity, and they possess the truly successful worldview, which seems to involve the worship of greed, the rejection of science, raging misogyny, and building a culture where child-rape can thrive. You know, I can imagine a world, a better world, where that perspective did not exist.

Also, a True Christian™ would know that their Bible prohibits tattoos. Not that that matters to me, but I think those ugly-ass chicken scratches on his skin ought to mean that he is damned to hell, the hell of superficial irrational dingbats.

I get mail

My address is easy to find, and if nothing else, you can just send it to me, at the University of Minnesota Morris, and it will find its way to my mailbox. Lately, I’ve gotten mundane pages from the Watchtower (Jehovah’s Witnesses are instantly recognizable by the style of their illustrations), and this…this kookrant. The guy really, really hates trans people and the expectation that you will be kind and respectful to your fellow human beings.

He doesn’t seem to understand numerals. “6000 thousand” is six million. Unless he’s in some weird sect that has a different age of the Earth than other fundamentalist Christians, he’s confused, or just innumerate.

My eyes glaze over. Would you believe this letter goes on for 8 pages of intolerance and hatred? I’ll spare you the middle — it’s all the same — but here’s the last page, where he tells me to become a Christian.

No, not ever. I have no desire to become garbage.

The company they keep tells you all you need to know

Holy crap. Guess who these guys are looking towards for advice. Gad Saad.

Musk: I mean, there’s a guy who posts on X who’s great: Gad Saad.*
Rogan: Yeah. He’s a friend of mine. He’s been on the podcast a bunch of times.
Musk: Yeah, he’s awesome. … And he talks about, you know, basically suicidal empathy. Like, if there’s, like, there’s so much empathy that you actually suicide yourself. So that we’ve got civilizational suicidal empathy going on. And it’s like, I believe in empathy. Like, I think you should care about other people, but you need to have empathy for civilization as a whole and not commit to a civilizational suicide.
Rogan: Also, don’t let someone use your empathy against you so they can completely control your state and then do an insanely bad job of managing it and never get removed.
Musk: The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy. The empathy exploit. They’re exploiting a bug in Western civilization, which is the empathy response. So, and I think empathy is good, but you need to think it through and not just be programmed like a robot.
Rogan: Right. Understand when empathy has been actually used as a tool.
Musk: Yes. Like it’s weaponized. Empathy is the issue. Yeah, weaponized empathy.

He’s awesome…I’m going to have to puke. Gad Saad is a marketing professor with no qualifications in science, but is thriving by jumping on the evolutionary psychology bandwagon. Or, as Eiynah describes him,

He is a white nationalist, someone who calls for expelling Muslims, a vicious transphobe, someone who refers to anti-Zionist Jews as insects. A truly vile man who they described as ‘a Canadian professor’.

His latest schtick is to claim that people are caring too much for their fellow human beings, especially if they belong to ethnic groups he doesn’t like, and calling it suicidal empathy. He’s written a whole book on the topic, a book I’ve mentioned before, and not one I’d ever care to read. Let’s take a look at the Amazon reviews, where it has 4½ stars (the reviews show all the signs of being carefully pruned of criticism), and all you have to do is look at who is praising him to know it’s trash.

“Western civilization is doomed, unless the core weakness of suicidal empathy is recognized and actions are taken that are hard but necessary for survival. Gad Saad articulates this well. All of Gad’s books, including this one, are great.” — Elon Musk

“Over the course of nearly half a century tracking culture war issues I have some perspective on our time and society, and I am deeply worried that the West faces a challenge like no other. But I was unable to link the disparate threats—the DEI, BLM, and trans movements, the fetishization of victimhood status, the ennobling of terrorists and criminals, and the failure to solve the drug and homelessness problems—to the underlying cause until I read Gad Saad’s magisterial work on Suicidal Empathy. There it is! We’re killing ourselves with kindness and it must stop before the patient dies, starting with this book, which includes the contagion’s diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment.” — Michael Shermer, Publisher, Skeptic magazine, author of The Moral Arc and Conspiracy

“What happens when society becomes so empathetic that it tolerates intolerance? Gad Saad is the evolutionary psychologist who can tell us whether the enlightenment can endure in an age of suicidal empathy.” — Lord Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist and Birds, Sex and Beauty

Western civilization is doomed, unless we purge it of DEI, BLM, and trans movements and stop being kind. But Musk, Shermer, and Ridley are the people you should listen to only if you plan on doing the opposite of what they advise.

Instead, respect every branch of human civilization equally, regard them with fairness and generosity, and give them nothing but kindness. Except for Nazis.

Sucking up to Rogan or Musk will only make you popular with Nazis, and those people are bad.

Which hurts worse: Calvin Smith’s lies, or being flayed alive?

I finally got around to rebutting Calvin Smith’s lies. But I have to confess that I was flattered by his lengthy description of me.

Unfortunately, now I have to go to the hospital, where a dermatologist is going to slice out a divot of my flesh in the name of cancer prevention. Wheeee. I’ll probably survive this procedure, but I’m going to be dealing with some discomfort and a bloody bandage for a while.

I was lucky my family wasn’t god-soaked

I did not like this video. It’s titled “Meet the Evangelical Science Teacher Who Raised an Evolutionist“. It meanders. It’s slow. It’s from the perspective of a rational, evolution accepting person who has a father who is both a science teacher and a committed young earth creationist, and the problem is that it’s trying to humanize this man she loves, and present as much of his view as she can stomach, but everything he clings to is bullshit. She mainly struggles to keep their relationship tolerable, but he is wallowing in evangelical nonsense, soaking in creationist books and videos, and can never break out of his self-constructed pit of ignorance. It’s over an hour long, and the creator doesn’t break out of her own restraint until about an hour in, when she gets into an argument about climate change (he denies that it’s human-caused, of course).

I felt compelled to watch it because it reflects a perspective I don’t have — I grew up in a family that was open-minded and thoughtful. My family wasn’t atheist by any means, but they didn’t have the patience to put up with Christian lies, and I think they avoided church because it would have required that they think about the crap in the Bible, and it was safer to avoid confronting the beliefs they’d been brought up in. I didn’t have a father who sat around listening to old-time gospel hour shows, who had them playing as background noise (and I do mean noise) as he puttered around the house, and who as a consequence rejected scientific evidence. This video was infuriating because the pushback against this stupid man, who was smart enough to teach math to 3rd graders, was so tepid and weak, in spite of the fact that the creator was also infuriated with this old man’s intransigence.

I can only recommend it for people who are curious about what living the evangelical life is like. Short answer: it’s hellishly stupid.

Behold, my replacement!

I’ve only been teaching for over 40 years, so what do I know. I have to work with a team of professional biologists to hammer out a good curriculum, and I’m aware that there are a range of topics I’m not knowledgeable enough to teach — we have to work together to cover all the necessary material. I can’t even imaging having to teach material outside my narrow domain, like literature or history or advanced mathematics. I think I’d be a poor instructor in introductory chemistry, which is kind of close to biology.

So this is discouraging information.

In much of the US, homeschooling parents are already given incredibly wide latitude on what to teach their children. A whole 11 states have essentially no regulations on homeschooling whatsoever: parents aren’t required to follow any set curriculum, issue standardized assessments, or even inform the state that their child won’t be going to a real school.

Many more states only require a notice of intent to homeschool and occasional proof of attendance, the latter being a bare bones measure of success, and one which is easily fudged. Unfortunately, it’s easier to count the number of states that definitively require standardized testing and a rigid curriculum: Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, and Massachusetts.

All these lay people doing homeschooling are basically just winging it. There are companies that will sell you a homeschool curriculum, so there is that, but most parents have no training in teaching. I guess that’s just a skill we don’t consider important.

Hey, I know! Let’s use an AI to do all the work! Except…LLMs don’t know anything, they’re just parrots that echo back what their users want, and so they’ll just regurgitate any old nonsense without regard for truth and accuracy. Let’s test it.

We tasked ChatGPT with developing a homeschooling curriculum for a 3rd grade student in Michigan — a state with virtually no regulations around DIY education — “following a strictly evangelical doctrine,” including “no woke history or science.”

ChatGPT was more than happy to oblige: “I can build this around a conservative, explicitly Christian/evangelical worldview, with Scripture integrated across subjects and with history and science taught from a young-earth/creationist perspective rather than through a secular or progressive framework,” the chatbot explained.

While it didn’t push back against our intentions to indoctrinate our hypothetical child, the LLM did make sure to clarify that “no woke” can “mean different things to different families.” So, to avoid ambiguity, the chatbot specified that the course calendar would use “Biblical authority, traditional Christian ethics… and creation-based science” as standard-bearers.

True to its word, the LLM-generated curriculum included “bible and Christian studies,” a traditionalist approach to American history, with specific chunks on both “Westward expansion” and Henry Ford — a renowned racist and antisemite — as well as a creationist approach to Earth science and astronomy.

Truth doesn’t matter to an AI. Would you trust your children to it?

In case you were wondering, Mel Gibson is still a colossal asshole

The fundamental feature of Christianity is that its believers are all committed to the idea they are especially beloved by a super-being, which makes them particularly insufferable. Mel Gibson is the pinnacle of this brand of intrinsic narcissism.

Mel Gibson: I was not chosen by men, nor by Hollywood, nor by the powers of this world.
I was chosen by God.
The Lord put a fire in my bones and a cross on my shoulders.
I will carry it until my last breath.
No darkness, no enemy of this age will stop what Heaven has already decided.

Betty Bowers called it: “Is there a more potent brand of blasphemy than a shitty narcissist claiming they are the way they are all because of God?”

Don’t watch Mel Gibson movies.