Leaving iPhoneLand for the bountful shores of Androidia

Hi there!

First let me get this out of the way: I haven't blogged in a while! In fact, I'm on the internet a LOT less often than I once was. I have many reasons for this. Some are personal, many have more to do with some dismaying developments in the various online communities I participate(d) in, which kind of made me lose interest in participating in them. (Yes, I am talking about the pervasive and horrific sexism that has been allowed to fester in the atheist and skeptic communities. I'll have more to say on that at a later date).

I want to get back to blogging. And here we are. I wanted to start with something important and heartfelt.

But instead, I'm going to detail my migration from the iPhone to an Android device (the Galaxy SIII) next week. I'll detail why I'm making the switch. And once it's done, explain what I miss about the iPhone, and why I'm happy (or not) with my decision.

If it's boring to you, just skip it. This is meant more to get me back in the swing of things than for anything else.

O, hai

Hello. It's been a while.

So, where have I been? Nowhere, really. I kind of took the last year or so off from the online world. This was not by design. It just kind of happened. A few drafted blog posts, and the occasional Twitter update, but otherwise it's been radio silence from me.

Anyway, I can't promise I'll be posting regularly again. But I'll try.

FYI: Men's Rights Activists are terrible people

I'm starting something new today. Those of you on Twitter will be familiar with "Follow Friday." For those of you not on Twitter, well, I'll defer to The Oatmeal to explain.

I'm expanding on the idea, and will try to review a blog, podcast, or website that is worthy of your attention each week

For the inaugural edition, say hello to Man Boobz.

First, a bit of background as I bet there's a fair number of you unfamiliar with Man Boobz's bread-and-butter: the special breed of über-misogynist assholes known as the Men's Rights Movement or Men's Right's Activists.

Are you familiar with "Men's Rights Activists?" If not, consider yourself lucky, because finding a more hateful, self-pitying, angry, pathetic, priviledged, tactless, and self-contradictory no-need-to-parody group of human beings on this planet (I can't speak for any other planets) is difficult indeed. A good introduction can be found here. And an even better introduction is the frothing bile from the MRAs in the comments section at the same link. (Note: you'll have to manually expand a lot of comments, as the MRA hordes have systematically down-voted almost all rebutting conversation as "not helpful")

Essentially, Men's Rights Activists believe that our society is run and dominated by women, for women.

In MRA world, poor, put-upon men are helplessly manipulated by devious feminists. (Which is to say female supremacists. Which is to say all but a few women.) Women hate men and have only staved off eliminating them entirely to make sure someone provides them with a baby, thus ensuring a lifetime of child support payments which they can use for shoes.

In MRA world, all women are frigid sluts who refuse sex with every man they see ever, and paradoxically spread their legs for every man they ever see (with the notable exception of any Men's Rights Activist making the claim).

In MRA World, women are almost never victims of rape or spousal/partner abuse, but will gleefully lie about being raped on the off chance they could fuck-over a hapless dude. And they'll slaver at any stories of men being raped or beaten, which of course happens far more often to men than women.

In MRA World, not only have women collectively been given a position of authority over all men, but this is of course the opposite of how it should be: Women should be demure and subservient to men, catering to their every desire. MRAs will rarely admit this directly, but it shouldn't be too much trouble to get them to own up to it (I know I've been able to in my rather limited online interaction with them).

Though I've been aware of the Men's Rights Movement for a few years, its only in recent months that I've come to be fascinated by the movement. And by "fascinated" I mean "entertained." And by "entertained" I mean "horrified."

I'm occasionally involved in debates about all manner of irrationality and nonsense, from creationism, Teapartyism, and climate-change-denialism to homeopathy, alien abduction, and homophobia. But I have found few people as so unhinged, hateful, irrational, and jaw-droppingly awful as members of the Men's Rights Movement.

And that's where Man Boobz comes in. Man Boobz is the handiwork of David Futrelle, who tirelessly tracks the most outrageously misogynistic assholes the world has to offer and mercilessly mocks them to hilarious and/or depressing effect. How does David has the intestinal fortitude to read this kind of bullshit, day after day, I'll never know. Easy targets? You bet your ass they are, but it is nonetheless satisfying to see the bankrupt ideas of MRAs treated with exactly the type of response they deserve: outright mockery.

Okay, so this was less a review of MB as it was a chance to vent about MRAs, but if you want that chance more often, be sure to check out Man Boobz. I'd say "enjoy," but I don't think that's quite the right word here.

BREAKING NEWS: Jon Stewart exposes Fox News commentators as racist, hypocritical assholes

And by news, I mean just another day. Still, an absolutely brilliant, funny, and quite depressing take-down of Fox's ginned-up outrage at the rapper Common. Watch both parts:

Part 1:

Part 2:

[via Balloon Juice]

Timehead

So, it's not my intention to turn this into an all-Doctor-Who, all-the-time blog. But I haven't been inspired to write much lately, so you'll have to forgive me.

So I have a theory on the events of last week's episode that I want to share. It's incredibly spoilery, so if you haven't seen "The Impossible Astronaut" yet, please DO NOT READ ON. Seriously, it will hamper your enjoyment of the show if you read this before you see it.

Here's an amazing photo of the sun. Just to fill some space in...

Pretty, eh?

Still here? Okay. So, the little girl who regenerates at the end: what's her deal. It's implied that she's Amy's daughter, as Amy sees a photograph of the two of them together. But is it that simple?

Well, yes. Kinda. I think she's the daughter of Amy and Rory, two regular humans.

But remember, Amy was abducted by the Silents and had been kept for "many days." It was never explained why. We know the Silents have been trying to replicate Timelord technology ("someone's attempt to build a TARDIS"), and now I think they're trying to replicate Timelord physiology as well. They abducted Amy to futz about with her fetus's DNA and experiment with regeneration.

We know the Silents have an interest in Amy's pregnancy (the one at the White House is very keen that she tell the Doctor about it), and we know they were keeping a very close eye on the little girl at the orphanage.

Experimentation with Timelord biology was foreshadowed by River saying that aliens would gladly tear the world apart to get a single cell from the Doctor's body. (Perhaps this is even why the Doctor engineered his own death and fiery funeral?)

Lastly, this fits right in with the outside-of-Doctor-Who cultural narrative of the Grey Aliens (whom the Silents are clearly meant to resemble) as abductors who experiment with human reproduction and hybridization.

I think there's a lot going for this one! Of course, I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Goodbye, Elizabeth Sladen

I was sad to hear just minutes ago that Elizabeth Sladen, who played Doctor Who's Sarah Jane Smith for a time spanning 38 years. So, so sad.

Having just reflected on the impact Doctor Who had on my childhood an hour ago, I'd be remiss to not remark on the impact she had on the show and on my life. Farewell, and you'll be missed.

Me and Doctor Who - a history

I cannot tell you how excited I am for this year's premiere of Doctor Who. I think more excited than I ever have been since the show returned in 2005. And that's on the heels of last year, which I was pretty damn excited for.

But anything I can say about what I'm looking forward to has been said elsewhere. So other than noting that I am absolutely loving the bold new direction that Steven Moffat has pointed the show, and that from the little bits I've heard of what is to come (I've tried to shield myself from too many spoilers) we're in for an amazing journey this year, we'll leave it at that.

Can I just say that eight-year-old me couldn't be happier about the state of Doctor Who?

You see, I grew up with the show. I remember discovering the show early on in grade school (maybe 6 or 7 years old). And being a child Doctor Who fan in the United States in the eighties and nineties was a depressing experience. In Salt Lake, Doctor Who aired each evening at 5:00 on the local PBS channel (later, it was moved to Saturday night), and no one else I knew watched it. My friends, who were all Star Wars fans, had action figures and lunchboxes and books and pop cultural references to their favorite property. I had, well, a battered library-clearance-sale novelization of "The Five Doctors" and a tire pressure gauge that made a reasonable stand in for the sonic screwdriver. I was the 4th Doctor for Halloween one year, and absolutely no one knew who I was (I remember one kid being impressed with my "homeless guy" costume). Still I was getting to see the occasional brand-new episode just a few months after they aired in the UK for a while... and then when I was 9, the show was over.

In 1996, I was so excited when I heard that the BBC and Fox were collaborating on a revived series to air in the US right along side the X-Files. They were airing the pilot as a movie, and I couldn't wait! Then I saw it. I was crestfallen: It was crap. Even by mid-nineties Fox sci-fi shows standards. (I've rewatched it recently and it's not near as bad as I remembered, but it's still not, you know, good.) I still clung to the idea that the series would be picked up, but alas, it was not to be. Soon, the classic series stopped airing on the PBS affiliate, and it looked like all I had of my favorite show was my memories.

And then in 2005, the revived series returned to BBC screens and became a massive hit. Now, Who merchandise is readily available, from action figures of even third-tier forgettable characters (like Star Wars kid of yore had) to more adult-friendly (not in that way... without a little jiggery-pokery) goodies like a TARDIS USB-hub and a sonic screwdriver that works as a real screwdriver (to go along with my old tire gauge).

1988 me is awfully jealous of 2011 me.

Sabbath Police!

From Main Street Plaza comes this lovely video perfectly summing up one reason I find religion in general and Mormonism in particular so utterly tiring.



As Chino at MSP points out, this "funny" video puts on display the "surveillance culture" at play in Mormonism. When I was growing up, I absolutely saw stuff like this happen. Even just a few years ago, my ex and I (not Mormon) were out shopping and ran into her sister (Mormon). She seemed strangely awkward and uncomfortable, and I couldn't figure out why. It's because she was caught shopping on Sunday. It's not like we cared, of course.

And it's dripping in "listen to the men, they know better" patriarchal bullshit.

Honestly, this video makes me sad. It seems to me that if you have a day set aside for "rest" that you may as well make the most of it. What's wrong with going out skateboarding or fishing? The argument I always heard against shopping was just that it enabled other people to work on Sunday. Not that that is without nonsense hypocrisy too: why does going to a video store to rent a movie enable others to violate the Sabbath, but watching it at home not, considering someone is helping get the electricity to your home.

Yep. Resurrecting this thing...

So, about a year ago, I told anyone reading this to shove off and go to my new blog at Tumblr.

And now, I've decided to countermand that measure and bring back this one. I'll save you the long explanation of why, but there it is. I'll probably keep the Tumblr, but will mostly use it for sharing random shit like animated .gifs of baby wombats, which is what Tumblr is made for.

I expect to be posting more, and post with more substance than I did on the tumb. First off, I'm stealing inspired by a series of posts by Amy at Random Exposure to do some Listography lists. I know I just said more substance, but what are you gonna do?

O hai!

I suppose I should mention that I'm moving this blog to http://porlob.tumblr.com

If you're using an RSS reader, click here to update your feed to the new address.

(and if you're NOT using an RSS reader, come on. It's 2010. Google Reader does the job just fine.)

I've been thinking of making a move for a long while now. I was going to do Wordpress, but decided Tumblr better meets my needs, which should mean more updates for you. Yay!

See you on the flipside!

Everybody Draw Muhammad Day

The last few months have seen two grassroots stunt protests against Muslim extremism: Boobquake, and now Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.

If you follow me on Twitter (and if you don't, you should), you'll know that I was a bit hesitant to throw my full support behind Boobquake, despite the immense respect I have for Jen, the event's originator.

But as I thought about it, particularly after reading this persuasive post by Greta Christina, I found most of the criticisms of Boobquake to be nigh indistinguishable from the very sort of oppressive nonsense that Boobquake was in response too: e.g., women shouldn't wear revealing clothing because it will make men lose control.

So that brings up to Everybody Draw Muhammad Day, which is today! This event was started in response to the chilling effect over protests and riots over depictions of Muhhamad, the prophet of Islam. In particular, the decision by Comedy Central to censor an episode of South Park that depicted Muhammad out of fear of violent reprisal.

Again, I initially found it hard to throw my full support behind today: Comedy Central isn't a government, and it can therefore censor whatever it likes. It seemed, at first, more like "Everybody Needlessly Piss Off Muslims Day."

But then last week, Lars Vilks, one of the infamous Danish cartoonists, was attacked. This attack was caught on video (below). Then, Vilk's house was set on fire, and he was forced to go into hiding Vilks has since gone into hiding. So that he doesn't, you know, get murdered.


Over a cartoon. And not even a very good one. I'm reminded of Austin Dacey's stance on respect, and it's something I've tried to take to heart: all people are deserving of respect. It is paramount that we, especially humanists, respect people. But ideas are not deserving of respect. Ideas stand or fall on their own.

Not to overdo it on the video, but Rebecca Watson also helped win me over to EDMD.


And that's when I decided I'd participate in Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.

So, what did I do? I drew Muhammad, complete with a quote from the prophet himself:

Five Podcasts for Critical Thinkers

I listen to a lot of podcasts. They keep me company on work road trips, help pass the time when I'm in the midst of drudgery.

If you both (A) consider yourself a critical thinker, skeptic, or [fill in preferred label here] and (B) listen to podcasts, there is likely no need for me to mention shows like The Skeptics Guide to the Universe or Skepticality. Though if you don't listen to those, subscribe to those as well :)

Instead, I wanted to share a few show I listen to with a slightly less-general focus than SGU and Skepticality. Some of these might not even call themselves science or critical-thought podcasts, favoring comedy, politics, or human insight. But the hosts of all of these shows consistently apply skepticism and critical thought to their subject matter.

So, presented in no particular order...

RH Reality Cast
Website • iTunes

RH Reality Cast is produced by RH Reality Check, a web resource for reproductive health, and hosted by Pandagon's Amanda Marcotte, one of my Favorite People on all of the Internets. Each week, Amanda cuts through the nonsense and addresses the real issues surrounding reproductive health, healthcare, and abortion. It is unabashedly political and unabashedly liberal, which suits me just fine.

Curiosity Aroused
Website • iTunes

This fledgling podcast so far only has six episodes under its belt, but it has swiftly risen near to the top of my favorites. Rebecca Waston, cohost of SGU and another of my Favorite People on All of the Internets, hosts Curiosity Aroused. Each episode aims to bring a critical eye to a single topic, from mainstay skeptical issues, like why vaccination is a good idea, to less obvious ones, like addressing myths about dogs.

Curiosity Aroused "feels" very different to most skeptical podcasts, in that it doesn't assume it's preaching to the choir. Rather, each episode starts with Rebecca channeling Ira Glass with an introduction or anecdote about the topic at hand. Then, contributors (many of them, Skepchicks) present one or more stories on that topic.

I really can't say enough good about this one. I love it. I'd put it right along side Radiolab, which considering that it doesn't have the weight of NPR behind it, is impressive. Oh, and speaking of Radiolab...

Radiolab
Website • iTunes

It's a travesty that Radiolab, out of WNYC, does not air on my local NPR station. Luckily, it's available as a podcast. Think of it like This American Life, except that each week, the theme is a topic within science. It's really difficult for me to capture what listening to Radiolab is like in type, but can't recommend it highly enough. your best bet is to just listen to an episode, and you'll be hooked immediately. Might I recommend the Parasites or the Earworms (songs, not parasites in this case) episode? Fascinating stuff.

Reasonable Doubts
Website • iTunes

There are a lot of podcasts on atheism (I've even been a guest on one), but this one is the best in my opinion. I look forward, especially, to the "counter apologetics" segment, where the very knowledgeable hosts dissect an argument from well-known religious apologists (*cough* William Lane Craig *cough*) and, I think, ably show their arguments to be less than compelling.

Sundays Supplement
Website • iTunes

Iszi Lawrence and Simon Dunn are two British comedians who, well...

Each week, we get out fingers inky so you don't have to. We put two of Britain's newspapers head-to-head to see which has the best supplements. So... find out which paper you should've bought, last Sunday.

Yep. It's a show about people reading the newspaper. Riveting, right? But check it out. I guarantee that you will be entertained. I eagerly await the newest SunnySup every week. Hilarious! And what's more, it occasionally features interviews (or guest hosts) like the aforementioned Rebecca Watson or Richard Wiseman. Have you ever wondered what would happen to a kitten if you put it in the Large Hadron Collider and proceeded to accelerate it to near the speed of light? Well, Iszi asks LHC physicist Brian Cox and finds out once and for all.

________________________________________

Now, get to listening!

I tried to highlight shows here that may not fit into the usual norm of "critical thinking" podcasts (though I suppose Reasonable Doubts does. But I already wrote the damn text, so it stays). Am I missing something amazing? Tell me in the comments below!

Geeks Who Drink

Every Wednesday for about the last month, Piper Down, my favorite local pub (this, in part, due to its close proximity to my domicile) , has been host to Geeks Who Drink, Utah's first regular pub quiz.

If you're not familiar with a pub quiz, we form up into a team of 6 players, and compete against a barful of know-it-alls for supremacy over all and a $50 gift card.

And it's a whole lot of fun.

Each night, GWD presents 8 rounds, each round with 8 questions on a given topic. The topics range from straightforward ones like... Actually, scratch that: there are no straight-forward ones. Nearly every round is some off-the-wall topic like "Minor Star Wars character, or STD medication?" or "name the movie based on these clips of Al Pacino screaming." Hats off to the mysterious quiz writers who come up with these crazy nonsense categories each week.

If you're in SLC, be sure to come to Geeks Who Drink and join in on the fun, though don't expect to win, as that's our team's purview. We took 1st the last two weeks and we don't plan on breaking our stride. That's right: I'm boasting. How unhumble of me.

If you're not in Utah, check out geekswhodrink.com to see if they're in your area as well!

Fun with Data #1: The Decemberists

No one has mastered the art of storytelling in song more than the Decemberists. From operatic epics like The Tain and The Hazards of Love to sea shanties like "The Mariner's Revenge Song", Colin Meloy and the Decemberists' moody tales of half-remembered evenings in San Francisco and Victorian-era ne'er-do-wells are gorgeous and intriguing.

I discovered the Decemberists completely by accident. I saw Castaways and Cutouts in a record store. Liking the cover art and knowing that I could trust just that about anything released by the Kill Rock Stars label would be excellent, I bought it having never heard their music or even their name before.

At first, it didn't grab me. I found Colin Meloy's voice a bit off-putting, listened to it once and forgot about it. But somewhere in the back of my mind, it got me. A few weeks later, I had the melody to "Grace Cathedral Hill" (still one of my all-time favorite songs) in my head. I dug into my collection and popped C&C back into my CD player. This time, they grabbed me. And they never let go.

Okay, enough with the personal anecdote. This post is called "Fun with data"... So where is the data?

One thing fans of the Decemberists know that there are some common themes in the various tales. Just how common are these themes? Well, I decided to find out, and conducted an exhaustive search of the Decemberists' songs. Here's what I found:

Songs included are the 66 songs from the five full albums, 5 Songs and The Tain. "Past" indicates a song that identifiably takes place at least 20 years prior to the present day. "Death", "Drowning", and "Murder" are not mutually exclusive, and a single incident may be counted among all three (see: "The Rake"). Full data available for peer review prior to publication in a major academic journal. As it surely will be. Right? ... Right?

Am I still alive?

Hey everyone! Have you been wondering where I have been? Whether I'm still alive?

Well, I've god good news: I'm delighted to announce that, yes, I am indeed still alive.

"But Patrick," you say, "we miss your long screeds about why you don't understand religious moderates. And your interesting-if-a-tad-egocentric personal history series. And your in-depth analysis of off-hand pseudoscientific comments made by your coworkers. And your tales of sex toy discussions within earshot of important religious leaders. And your endless vitriol towards Glenn Beck [exhibit A, B, C, D]. And don't forget your movie reviews! Why don't you ever blog any more???"

I hate to let down my throng of, surely, countless fans. So I hereby commit to writing at least one post every day for the next thirty days. Not all of them will be amazing. I might just post a link to YouTube video (like this one). But I'm planning on a part 5 of my personal history series and finally putting down on paper (er, you know what I mean) some ideas I've had rolling around in my head for some time.

See you tomorrow!

ZOMG! OBAMA IS teh ANTiCHRIST SO BELIVE IN JESUS nOW!!!1!!1

[via Main Street Plaza]
So, when I first started watching this video below, I immediately wanted to take it apart, to demolish it point by point... But you know what? It's Saturday morning, and my time could better be spent attacking the last remnants of the datura bushes in my front yard.

Luckily, Jon Adams at the USU SHAFT blog does a brilliant job of addressing why this video, made by a Mormon, is indicative of recent shifts in Mormon perspective, which historically hasn't been so fire-and-brimstone end-timesy. And why this shift may be in part driven by Glenn Beck. Check out his excellent post.

The stupid flows fast and free here...

One nation, indivisible

Sometimes, I get annoyed at some atheists and atheist groups that seem to spend an inordinate amount time on, for instance, getting "in God we trust" off of American currency or "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

I agree with the sentiment, of course: such language is inherently exclusionary, unnecessary, and in my view unconstitutional. But I wonder sometimes if this collective energy could better be spent on other tasks...

But then I see a video like this. It just reiterates what I already know, but it reminds me that maybe it's time well-spent after all. Our government should not discriminate against any group just becuase they are in the minority. I think its more wrong to, for instance, deny a huge chunk of the population the right to marry... but perhaps if our national symbols more accurately reflected the inherent secular nature of our founding documents, it wouldn't be as easy to justify such disparities through an appeal to religious tradition...

Doctor Who cocktails

So, I'm having party in a few weeks for the premier of the new season of Doctor Who. I'm well excited to see what new showrunner Stephen Moffat, who has written most of my favorite episodes, will bring to the series. (I've written previously on why I'm not sorry to see Russell T. Davies leave the show.) What I've seen and heard so far is promising: to my knowledge, there are no aliens that just look like humans with animal heads glued on. This is very encouraging!

In addition to Doctor Who, I also enjoy mixed drinks. Specifically, I like making mixed drinks. And I love devising new ones... So, here are a few Doctor Who-themed drinks I've come up with. I like fizzy drinks, so this is weighted in that direction.

If you try any of these, I'd love to hear how it went in the comments.

The Sonic Screwdriver
This is a simple on. And obvious, as it names both the world's most popular cocktail [citation needed] and one of the most iconic features of the show. The internet suggests that a Sonic Screwdriver is 2 parts blue Jones' Soda and 1 part vodka. However, isn't Jones blue soda bubblegum flavored? No thank you. Here's my version, which at least keeps the citrus theme of a true SD.

• 4 ounces grapefruit soda (I use Fresca, but choose your poison)
• 1.5 ounces vodka
• .5 ounce blue curacao

Pour into an ice-filled lowball glass, garnish with a blood orange wheel.

I hear the color of the sonic screwdriver effect in the new series will change from blue to green. If so, just substitute orange juice for the grapefruit soda, and you're done!


Captain Jack Harkness
This one is full of yum. Mmmmmm...

• 1-1.5 ounces dark rum (NOT spiced rum)
• 1 ounce whiskey (I used Crown Royal, but Jack Daniels is a more obvious choice)
• 4 ounces ginger beer (or ginger ale, if you want something a little less spicy)
• dash of lime juice (unsweetened. juice from 1 line wedge is about right)
• splash of cream

Add all ingredients except for the cream to ice-filled highball and stir gently. Now add the splash of cream which should slowly diffuse through the ice. Do not stir. Garnish with a twist of lime. This makes a delicious and pretty drink.


Regeneration
This was a delightful drink and refreshing drink. You might even call it regenerative. I'll make this again, Doctor Who party or not.

• 3 ounces pear nectar
• 2 ounces champagne
• 3 ounces club soda or seltzer
• 2 ounces whiskey (I used Crown Royal)

Combine the pear nectar and whiskey in a shaker, shake vigorously, and pour into a highball (no ice). Stir in the champagne and club soda. Garnish with a pear wedge. I think this was my favorite of the bunch. Yum.


Time Vortex
This is a layered drink, so ingredients must be added in this order*. I've not included quantities here. Just add enough to achieve the desired stripe width.

• grenadine (don't go overboard here)
• pineapple juice
• Jagermeister (just enough to form a distinct layer)
• blue curacao (don't go overboard here)
• Chambord

Use the brand specified if you can. If you substitute other brands or other liqueurs, the densities may vary, so you'll need to experiment to make sure to it will layer properly.

Layered drinks are mostly made to look pretty rather than taste good. Nonetheless, I rather liked this. The herbal flavors of the Jagermeister set off the otherwise too-strong fruit flavors nicely.

*If you've never made a layered drink before, the most reliable way I've found is to hold a spoon by the spoony end and place it so the handle end is just above the partially-poured drink. Gently pour the next ingredient along the spoon handle. This slows down the liquid so it doesn't splash into the glass and ruin the layered effect. Ingredients must be added from densest to least dense. Also, the thinner the glass, the better your drink will hold its layers, a shooter glass or (if you happen to have them) a pousse-café glass is best.


Have any other ideas for DW cocktails? Post them in the comments!

Thoughts on Dacey / Hausam debate

This past Saturday, I attended a lecture (organized by SHIFT) by Austin Dacey entitled "Blasphemy: Hate Speech or Human Right."

Despite me sending Dr. Dacey off on a fifteen minute wild goose chase in search of a bathroom minutes before the lecture, he was extraordinarily well-spoken, eloquent and persuasive.

The thrust of Dr. Dacey's argument is that all people are deserving of equal respect and dignity, but that not all ideas are, and that a truly open society depends on the ability to criticize ideas. I couldn't agree with this more. With blasphemy laws spreading, such as the new one in Ireland and the various proposals put before the UN (the talks for which Dr. Dacey has participated in), this is an important distinction.

Following his lecture, Dr. Dacey was joined by Dr. Mark Hausam for a debate (really, more of a conversation) called "Is Morality Possible Without God?"

Dr. Hausam's position, of course, is that no, morality is not possible without God.

Hausam began by listing off several things that would be true in a Godless universe. I objected to very little of what he said here, I just don't view it as a problem. (e.g., the universe is so vast and expansive that in the grand scheme of things, we puny humans on our pale blue dot add up to very little, except in our own eyes.)

Then things got dicey. Hausam's contention, and I'll try not to strawman here, is that all human morality is "subjective" and therefore illusory. Only an observer outside of the Universe and truly "objective" can therefore be the source of true morality. (For no apparent reason, he also said this fact demonstrated God's existence... which was neither the topic of discussion nor true.)

Nearly everything Hausam said hinged on one or both of these assumptions being true. Yet he failed to substantiate either assumption. Furthermore, I think both of these can be deomstrated to not be true: human's can be moral without a god, and God (and let's not beat around the bush here, Hausam was talking about the God of the Bible) is neither "objective" nor consistently moral.

Human-based morality is not real morality?
Hausam played a little linguistic trick throughout his arguments. He was supposedly saying that morality cannot exist without God. But what he actually contended is that objective morality cannot. I got so tired of him invoking the word "objective" as if it gave him a free pass to say whatever he wanted.

Here's the deal: in a way, he's right: there is no universally accepted "objective" morality in humans. Things deemed anathema to one society wouldn't garner so much as a batted eyelash in others. We can come up with some approximations of "objective" morality: equal opportunity no matter one's gender, race, religion, or nation; rejection of murder and rape, and so on. But even those qualities are based on some assumptions (assumptions that I subscribe to), such as the inherent equality of all people. Indeed, without holy words in the picture, I'd contend that it may be easier to fashion something approaching an "objective" morality, as wouldn't be based around the capricious desires of beings that only speak through chosen "prophets."

So what if human morality is "subjective?" They're the result of evolution and social cohesion, primarily, which doesn't make them less applicable to human life, but more applicable than those based on the unintelligible motivations of a sky god, operating under the the simple moral rule of "whatever I say goes."

Hausam repeatedly stated that although he wouldn't act any differently in a godless universe, other people would. He doesn't have numbers to back this up of course, as atheists are the least well-represented in American prisons of any religious group, and the least religious nations in the world report the highest levels of overall happiness and stability (yes, there are many other factors playing in to those two statistics, but it does throw into question the idea that lacking belief in God = guiltless crime spree party).

God is objectively moral?
Hausam came out as a Calvinist during the debate, meaning he believes that every jot and tittle of our lives is specifically preordained by God, making EVERY HUMAN ACT EVER a moral act by his standards, as it was preordained by the perfect holder of "objective" morality. Torture? Moral. Rape? Moral. Murder? Moral. I doubt very much that Hausam truly believes those acts are okay, yet he's constructed a world in which there is no reconciliation -- save cognitive dissonance -- of these factors. If anything God does is moral, and god specifically preordains all human acts, then the 9/11 attacks, the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, and [insert horrific human act of choice here] are all moral acts.

Indeed, this is a much more troubling scenario than the one he proffered about we amoral atheists.

So how objective is God's morality? If we are talking about some inchoate, distant Deist god who is not concerned with human affairs one way or another, then fine: call it objective. But also call it meaningless. Of what use is "objective" morality if this being is not concerned with us and does not communicate with us?

If, instead, we're talking about the God of the Bible (and let's be clear: we are), then we most certainly are not talking about an objective being. God says so himself, in describing himself as variously jealous, loving, vengeful, pleased at the smell of burning animal flesh, and myriad other decidedly subjective dispositions towards humans and human acts.

Based on my own set of "subjective" morals, rape and genoocide (to pick two examples) are always wrong. The same can't be said for the God of the Bible. If whatever he says is moral is moral, then that means raping war orphans is not only sometimes morally acceptable, but morally obligatory. Same goes for murder, genocide, and on and on. These things aren't always okay. Just whenever God says they are. How is this objective? It sounds rather capricious, petty, and -- dare I say it? Yes, I dare -- immoral to me.

Furthermore, if we assume that Yahweh is an "objectively moral" being, then from whence comes this objectivity? This is a classic turtles all the way down problem: Who bestowed moral authority on God?

I wished there was a Q&A session afterward, as Austin Dacey only had a limited amount of time (and therefore, a limited scope) to respond to Hausam. I've touched little on Dacey's criticisms here, precisely because he answered them so persuasively that all I have left is the stuff Dacey was unable to address and I thought warranted more exploration.
_________________________________________________

If you read through all of that (and I don't blame you if you didn't), I'd be interested to your your thoughts in the comments below.

SHIFT: Austin Dacey lecture and debate, Feb 27

SHIFT: Secular Humanism, Inquiry and Freethought, the University of Utah secular student alliance, has an exciting event coming up this coming Saturday. I'll be there! Hope you can make it too!

(via SHIFT's blog)
Austin Dacey, author of The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life, and former Center for Inquiry representative to the United Nations, is coming this Saturday!

His lecture, called "Blasphemy: Hate Speech or Human Right? Inside the struggle for freedom of expression at the United Nations" will be held in the University of Utah Fine Arts Auditorium (375 South 1530 East) on Saturday, February 27, beginning at 4:00pm ~ the doors will open at 3:00, and seating is first-come-first-served, so come early to grab your good seats!

Following Dr. Dacey's lecture, he will be joined by local Salt Lake Community College Professor of Philosophy, Dr. Mark Hausam, for a debate entitled, "Is Morality Possible Without God?"

Don't miss this amazing opportunity! This lecture is being hosted by SHIFT ~ Secular Humanism, Inquiry and Freethought. It has been generously made possible by the exhaustive efforts of Co-Founder Jason Cooperrider, The Secular Student Alliance (one of our national affiliates), and The Humanists of Utah, as well of course by our participants Dr.s Austin Dacey (and Angie McQuaig) and Mark Hausam.

Donations are gratefully being accepted via cash or checks mad