I reject conspiracy theories

A rich abuser was put in prison. He was the subject of massive contempt from the general public. He knew he was screwed and wasn’t going to get out of this; he was going to get dragged through a grueling trial. He was never going to get out again, was never going to be able to molest young girls again, and that, apparently, was a part of his life that was extremely important to him. He tried to kill himself once before.

He finally successfully committed suicide. The cops didn’t interfere, they aren’t as competent as you might think from TV cop shows.

I find everything in my description above sufficient explanation of the event. If you want to claim something more nefarious at play, you’ll have to bring additional evidence to bear, and most of us do not have access to any deeper evidence than what we see reported in the news, and if you want to claim that there was an assassin hired to silence him, or that a body double was killed and the man is now getting plastic surgery and living in Uzbekistan, that’s called a conspiracy theory. It’s garbage.

If you want to claim there’s more to this than a despondent man outsmarting a penal system that doesn’t give a damn about the people under its responsibility, I’m going to roll my eyes at the absurdity, unless you bring new evidence.

By the way, plausibility is not evidence, nor is your conviction that someone is a villain.

Skepticon is so good

If you’re not here, you can still listen to the first two talks of the con from Friday night. Highly recommended!

Ashton Woods was a fierce and passionate for social justice, and a great example of the heart of this meeting. Rose Eveleth was smart and funny and made everyone think.

It was only the first day and it reminded me why I’ve been attending this meeting for 11 years. (OK, maybe not why I went the first year or two, they didn’t always have great speakers…but now they’ve settled into an exceptional groove.)

Good morning, Christianity!

This is how some Christians think they’ll win hearts and minds for their religion. It’s pretty much typical for what I wake up to every morning.

There’s a phrase these fanatics like to use: “hardening the heart against God”. I’ve been dealing with this stuff for decades, and they’ve succeeded in turning my heart into a gristley, fibrous lump of black contempt for religion. Thanks, gang, I wouldn’t be the atheist I am today without you!

I would also remind my fellow atheists now that reversing this tactic against them will not persuade them that your intellectual rejection of the supernatural premises of religion is valid, either.

Odd geek out

Uh-oh. I just got a look at the workshop schedule for Skepticon, and there I am, up against a 2 hour block from American Atheists, and at the same time as Callie Wright. Callie Wright! I know where everyone is going to be. I want to go to their session on podcasting. If no one shows up for mine, can I just go next door?

Also, I seem to be the only person doing anything vaguely sciencey this coming weekend. I’m feeling awkward and out of place. I hope no one laughs at me.

12:00 pm – 2:00 pm
Stories to Tell: Breaking Barriers and Building Bridges by Putting a Human Face on Atheism
Nick Fish, American Atheists track

Perhaps the most important goal of the Atheist community is to take away the negative connotations associated with the word Atheist. Nick shares some of his experiences and offers tips as to help us get past the label to see the people behind it.
Colonnade A

1:00 pm – 2:00 pm
Understanding Phylogenetics
PZ Myers

What’s a phylogenetic tree, and why do they keep changing on us? Come build a phylogenetic tree from evidence (with help!) and learn how it’s done.
Colonnade C

1:00 pm – 2:00 pm
How to Make Your Podcast AWESOME
Callie Wright, Secular Women Work track

Anyone can put together a mediocre podcast these days, and lots of people do. Come find out what you can do to make your podcast stand out and be a joy to listen to.
Colonnade B

It’s OK if you’re going to Skepticon and choose to skip my workshop. I’ll understand completely.

The latest poll on creationism is out

The latest Gallup poll is interesting.

The anti-science, evolution-denying creationists have had an uptick (the grey line). I’d guess that’s due to radical conservativism experiencing a triumphal moment right now — a rising tide of sewer sludge fills the hip-waders of all the wacky denialists.

That uptick seems to have come entirely at the expense of the theistic evolutionists (the green line) who have lost a smidge of popularity.

Despite the slight rise of creationists, the godless evolutionists (the dark green line, the color of our heart’s blood) are still rising! Again, I’ll credit that to, in part, our current political polarization. Although I’d like to claim that better education on the subject is helping, too.

All of these shifts are slight, and shouldn’t be over-interpreted.

The latest findings, from a June 3-16 Gallup poll, have not changed significantly from the last reading in 2017. However, the 22% of Americans today who do not believe God had any role in human evolution marks a record high dating back to 1982. This figure has changed more than the other two have over the years and coincides with an increasing number of Americans saying they have no religious identification.

We might be edging upwards, but it’s a nail-biter with the final innings far off in the distance.

I have to remind myself that the foundation is not a distraction

Honestly, I often feel like the creationist wars are an irrelevant distraction when there are greater threats to our civil liberties and political system…I mean, it’s hard to get worked up about some pathetic god-botherin’ dweeb getting onto a school board on a platform of transparent lies and superstitious nonsense when fascist jackboots are stomping in the streets and white nationalists are murdering people.

But that’s what they count on. Oh, you’re worried about racism in the highest offices in the land? Perfect time to pack state houses and city councils and schoolboards with assholes while you’re not looking. It never ends. And then in a few years we all look back and say, “why didn’t you pay attention to local races?” and we have to remind ourselves that the roots matter.

So. Florida has a new Board of Education chairman, Andy Tuck. He’s another of those petty theocrats who doesn’t trust science but still insists on being in charge of education. This Andy Tuck:

School Board Vice Chairman Andy Tuck said Thursday, “as a person of faith, I strongly oppose any study of evolution as fact at all. I’m purely in favor of it staying a theory and only a theory.

“I won’t support any evolution being taught as fact at all in any of our schools.”

Brandon Haught is reluctant to call him a creationist. I’m not. Someone who thinks the established, well-substantiated science of evolutionary biology should not be taught in school is a creationist, a science-denier, and someone who should not have any responsibility in managing a classroom at any level.

Censoring science in the public schools is just one step on the road to creating another generation of Fox-News-watching, MAGA-hat-wearing, science-denying fuckwits who will work to wreck the country while declaiming their patriotism. This is how we get an electorate that puts the worst people in high office.

Marianne Williamson: dishonest and delusional

Gosh. Marianne Williamson replied to me and Orac on Twitter, to chide us for not reading her books.

It’s true. I haven’t read a whole book by Williamson, only excerpts, and they were enough to convince me she’s not a good candidate, despite her earnest, emotional appeal. Here, for example, is a Twitter thread full of specific examples from her books. They’re appalling.

Sickness is not a sign of God’s judgment on us, but of our judgment on ourselves. If we were to think God created our sickness, how could we turn to Him for healing? That kind of baseless drivel is not worth reading in greater detail.

Or you could read Lindsay Beyerstein, who did that old-fashioned thing journalists used to do of deeply researching the history and philosophy of Williamson’s beliefs. It’s all very Christian Sciencey, and its roots can be traced back to Christian Science BS.

According to Williamson, not only is the real world an illusion, everything is an illusion, except love. God is love. We only think that we are separate from each other and separate from God – in reality, we are all one. All of our problems, including sickness, are illusory. If we could just get beyond the illusion of sickness, we wouldn’t be sick.

If sickness is all in our mind and our minds can be changed by miracles, you might assume that miracles can cure disease. “Sometimes a miracle is a change in material conditions, such as physical healing,” Williamson writes in “A Return to Love.” “At other times, it is a psychological or emotional change.” This is the bait-and-switch at the heart of Williamson’s teachings. Maybe you’ll get well, or maybe you’ll feel better about being sick, but either way, she’ll get your money.

It’s all your fault, you know. Everything. If only you’d love God, you’d be better.

At times, Williamson sounds very victim-blamey. She claims that over-identification with the physical body at the expense of the spirit places a “stress on the body that the body was not meant to carry – and that’s where sickness comes from.”

When asked whether people get cancer because of bad thoughts, Williamson is quick to say that it’s not necessarily because of their own bad thoughts. Maybe a child got cancer because of someone else’s bad thoughts, she suggests, in “A Return to Love,” arguing that perhaps some evil chemical company executive’s bad thoughts led him to poison the water supply. But that argument conflicts with her theology’s core contention: If the child’s cancer is real (and not just an illusion) and the poisoned water is the real cause, then her claim that only love is real can’t be true. Never mind that it was the chemical executive’s actions that caused the pollution, not his thoughts. Williamson claims that “disease is loveless thinking materialized,” noting that lovelessness can be collective, like racism, which does indeed harm people’s health and shorten their lives. But this doesn’t explain how children are born with diseases that have no environmental or social cause, such as cystic fibrosis.

She has a lot of excuses and is quick with denial, but she can only do that because her beliefs are so nebulous and flexible…but ultimately, they rely on the Christian notion that you are a sinner and you deserve every affliction you get.

Nope, not voting for her ever.

Hey! Skepticon is next week!

You can still make it, you just have to get yourself to St Louis, it’s free.

In addition to the fabulous named people on the Skepticon schedule, I’m going to be doing one of the workshops on Friday, at 1pm. That’s the only one I know so far, which is a shame, because all the others will be far more interesting, I’m sure. I’m planning to introduce attendees to cladistic terminology and have them build phylogenetic trees from some data…oh god, you’re already falling asleep. Then don’t come! There’ll be lots of fun and intellectually stimulating activities and talks going on! Go to the comedy show, or the dance!

I’ll just sit my lonely hotel room and think about evolution, very deeply. Or maybe I’ll go spider-hunting around the venue. Maybe I should do a spontaneous spider workshop, alone, outside, just for me — don’t be alarmed if you see a strange man lurking in the bushes outside your room.

What should atheists support?

I received a long email complaining about the priorities of American Atheists. To distill it down a lot…

To use American Atheist (AA) resources to continue
pressing issues that are predominantly
LGTB is, in my opinion, a dereliction of duty, unwise
and possibly actionable.
…
Please remember that AA members are,
primarily and traditionally, interested in
separation of church and state issues.

Why?

I agree completely on the importance of church/state separation, and I think it’s important to get religion out of our schools, for instance. But why? Think about the deeper motivations behind atheism.

There are many reasons why people should oppose religion. I oppose it because it’s antithetical to good science, and that religion is used by people to endorse ideas that are contrary to the evidence. I consider that a very good reason.

Another very good reason, though, is that religion is behind many of the most repressive policies in this country. It fosters misogyny, child rape, the oppression of LGBTQ people, and a whole raft of vicious discriminatory ideas that harm those who don’t conform. It’s antithetical to healthy social practices, and that is a perfectly valid reason for atheists to fight back. It’s not just for science, or for anti-clericalism, or for legal agendas…many oppose religion because it is a social ill, and they may legitimately find common cause with other atheists for that reason. LGBTQ people need atheism, too, and they may care about other aspects of our culture than that “In God We Trust” is on our money.

It’s funny how Big Tent Atheism only wants to share the tent with cis het privileged white people who only want to talk about the Constitution as holy writ.

Also, it’s really weird to send me a letter like that when I’ve been ostracized from the formal atheist community for arguing that social issues ought to be as important to us as the scientific and legal ones. They don’t know me very well, I guess.

Our own little basket of atheist deplorables

Peter Boghossian has a new book out. I can guarantee I won’t be reading it if the cover contains blurbs from these people:

“If these people like this book, you should run screaming from its presence. Or chant ‘Klaatu Barada Necktie’ at it.”

Except maybe Sapolsky. What is he doing in that list? Don’t tell me he’s been sucked into the Intellectual Dork Vortex, too!

Speaking of Boghossian, the Portland State IRB has found him guilty, guilty, guilty of violating their guidelines. He’s now prohibited from doing any research with human subjects, or even applying for research grants, until he undergoes remedial ethics training.

That’s some letter he’s proudly waving around. It’s a gigantic black mark on his record that he’s advertising — if some person I didn’t know applied for a job at my university that included a university condemnation of their propriety and ethics, and prohibited them from applying for grant funding, that application would be round-filed so fast it would leave scorch marks as it exited the filing cabinet. That’s a kiss of death.

Wingnut welfare to the rescue! I’m sure a conservative think tank will consider that a beauty mark rather than a blemish. Maybe Prager U will want him?