Hey! I’m going to be speaking at an Iowa Atheists event tomorrow, which has me mildly shocked. I hope I haven’t forgotten how to talk, or worse, that the only thing I can talk about is spiders (No! Do not talk about spiders! People find it either boring or horrifying!)

It’s been a long time. You know, I’ve been effectively blacklisted by all the major atheist organizations because I’ve loudly criticized some of the atheist saints, like Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens, and then got attached to some hated shibboleths like feminism (but I’m not a woman), or gay liberation (but I’m straight), or trans rights (I’m also not trans), or some other heresy. The last time I talked to an atheist organization about speaking was about ten years ago, and that was painfully tentative — the person I spoke with wanted to check my availability, but they were afraid that some members of their group hated me so much that they’d veto the suggestion…which is what happened, I guess, because I never heard from them again.

Just as well. I’ve got an hour or more of macrophotos and videos of spiders that no one would want to see, anyway. If any of those groups that blacklisted me somehow decided to bring me on, that’s what they’d get, and it would serve them right.

Today I’m driving to the Twin Cities. Tomorrow at 2pm in Des Moines I’ll be talking about social justice, instead, which would make them cry even harder.

Mano Singham considers an essay from one of those people who say they were an atheist, but have now returned to their faith. Mano treats it thoughtfully and respectfully, and I can appreciate that, but nowadays my response to such a claim is “You’re full of crap, bye.”

I know, I’m a bad, rude person.

Unfortunately, it seems like even the most fervent, fanatical televangelist has a similar story about having been a heretical wastrel in their youth, but then they found Jesus and are now saved. It’s part of a redemption arc, and also part of a slur against atheists, that they only deny God because they are immature and hedonistic and haven’t thought seriously about faith.

I think Mano has it exactly right.

I left religion for purely logical reasons. not emotional ones. I found that however hard I tried, I just could not reconcile the scientific view that everything occurs according to natural laws with the traditional religious view that seemed to require an entity that could bypass those laws to act in the world to change the course of events. It took me a long time to overcome the emotional attachment to the religious beliefs that I had. So while I can understand how logical reasoning can make one leave religion, I cannot see how it can drive the reverse process, as Beha seems to desire.

Same here, except that my family faith tradition didn’t have much of an emotional attachment to Christianity, so shedding it was relatively trivial. I agree, though, that there are no good rational reasons to compel return to a faith, which is why I reject any attempts to rationalize it. It feels good to you, it connects you to friends and family, you have fond memories of your time in church…that’s fine. I believe you. Go ahead, I’m not going to deny your feelings. But if you try to tell me you have compelling, logical, scientific reasons to believe in a god, I’m going to tell you you’re full of shit.

This guy, Christopher Beha, has his own simple excuse.

To ask “How am I to live?” is to inquire as to not just what is right but what is good. It is to ask not just “What should I do?” but “How should I be?” The most generous interpretation of the New Atheist view on this question is that people ought to have the freedom to decide for themselves. On that, I agreed completely, but that left me right where I’d started, still in need of an answer.

That’s about as superficial a rationalization for becoming a Catholic as I can imagine. Why become a Catholic? Because you need someone to tell you what to do. Maybe Mr Beha should then ask, “Why should I trust this guy in a clerical collar or this holy book to know what I should do?” He’s not looking for an answer, he’s looking for an authority.

The more complete interpretation of the atheist view is that there is no one to tell you what to do with your life. And anyone who is telling you otherwise is lying to you.

The Washington Post ran an article with the provocative title, “These Patients Saw What Comes After Death. Should We Believe Them? Researchers have developed a model to explain the science of near-death experiences. Others have challenged it.” It’s obviously empty fluff, garbage of the kind that gets pumped out all the time to appeal to the gullible yokels in their readership. I’m not one of them. I also refuse to read the WaPo anymore (rot in hell, Jeff Bezos), but then, fortunately or unfortunately, the same article has appeared on Beliefnet, sans paywall. Now everyone can see how insipid the ‘evidence’ for life after death is. This article should present some evidence. It doesn’t. It’s the usual anecdotal silliness.

Here’s their big example.

After she dropped to her knees outside her home in Midlothian, Virginia, suffocating, after she was lifted into the ambulance and told herself, “I can’t die this way,” and after emergency workers at the hospital cut the clothes off her to assess her breathing, Miasha Gilliam-El, a 37-year-old nurse and mother of six, blacked out.

What happened next has happened to thousands who’ve returned from the precipice of death with stories of strange visions and journeys that challenge what we know of science. Last year, a team of researchers from Belgium, the United States and Denmark launched an ambitious effort to explain these experiences on a neurobiological level — work that is now being contested by a pair of researchers in Virginia.

At stake are questions almost as old as humanity, concerning the possibility of an afterlife and the nature of scientific evidence — questions likely to take center stage at a conference of brain experts in Porto, Portugal, in April.

“The next thing I knew, I was out of my body, above myself, looking at them work on me, doing chest compressions,” Gilliam-El said, recalling Feb. 27, 2012, the day she suffered a rare condition called peripartum cardiomyopathy. For reasons that aren’t fully understood, between the last month of pregnancy and five months after childbirth, a woman’s cardiac muscle weakens and enlarges, creating a risk of heart failure.

Gilliam-El, who had given birth just three days earlier, recalled watching a doctor try to snake a tube down her throat to open an airway. She remembered staring at the machine showing the electrical activity in her heart and seeing herself flatline. Her breathing stopped.

“And then it was kind of like I was transitioned to another place. I was kind of sucked back into a tunnel,” she said. “It is so peaceful in this tunnel. And I’m just walking and I’m holding someone’s hand. And all I’m hearing is the scripture, ‘Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death …’”

Please, please learn about the concept of confabulation. If you black out, when you resume consciousness, your brain quickly invents stories to fill the gap. They aren’t necessarily accurate. A trained nurse is going to be familiar with happens to patients who lose consciousness, and could overlay that on the period when she was actually non-functional. She’s also pre-loaded with religious mythology, and that gets stuffed into the constructed memory. It’s not evidence of anything.

I have a recent personal experience that applies. I too blacked out after a fall; I remember the pain of bouncing my skull off the sidewalk, and then the next thing was becoming aware that I was sitting in my office at work. I remember nothing of what happened between those moments.

But I quickly made assumptions. I must have (scenario A) got up, dusted myself off, and walked to work by force of habit. Or (scenario B) a pedestrian must have helped me up and sent me on my way, or (scenario C) a passing motorist pulled over and gave me a lift to the building, or (scenario D) an angel swooped down, clutched me to her soft downy bosom, and transported me to my office chair before giving me a revitalizing swig from the cask of whisky she carried in a cask on her collar. Do I have any evidence for A) my indomitable will, B) a pedestrian, C) a motorist, or D) an angel? No I do not. Some might be more likely than others, but I can’t claim I have any verifiable evidence for any of them.

Likewise, Gilliam-El knows she passed out in an ambulance — and we can find evidence for that — and that she regained consciousness in a hospital some time later — also based on evidence. But all the stuff about entering a tunnel and holding hands and hearing scripture, is an unverifiable invention of her brain.

That’s all these articles ever provide, a collection of stories people provide after periods of unconsciousness to rationalize their experience, and then calling them “evidence for life after death”. They’re not.

It’s always annoying that these ideas get “experts” who are unable to distinguish fantasy from evidence to support a popular myth.

Did you think the claims of moon landing hoaxers absurd?

Perhaps the flat earth conspiracies filled you with contempt?

Prepare yourself for the latest lunacy.

A theory claiming that Earth will lose gravity for seven seconds on August 12, 2026, has made the rounds on social media, sparking confusion and speculation. The claim originated from a so-called leaked document named Project Anchor, which began circulating online in late 2024. Posts suggested the U.S. space agency was secretly preparing for a short-lived gravitational anomaly that could lift people and objects into the air before violently bringing them back down.

You would be well-advised to nail your shoes to the floor on August 12, if you believe that nonsense.

At the center of the claim was a fabricated NASA initiative reportedly named Project Anchor, with a proposed budget of 89 billion dollars. The theory claimed the agency was preparing for a gravitational anomaly expected on August 12, 2026, at 14:33 UTC. According to content shared on now-deleted Instagram accounts, this so-called anomaly would cause anything not firmly secured to float several meters in the air before crashing back down.

The narrative was unusually detailed for a hoax. It broke down the seven seconds of supposed weightlessness step by step. In the first two seconds, people and objects would lift. By seconds three and four, they would rise up to 15 or 20 meters. By second five, panic would break out. By second seven, gravity would return, bringing a deadly descent.

How would NASA make such a specific, detailed prediction of an unprecedented event completely outside the bounds of physics?

In the absence of a credible, reputable skeptic organization, I guess we’re going to get all of our science from TikTok from now on.

It’s cold across much of the country. There’s snow and ice on the ground.

IT’S A CONSPIRACY!

At least, some stupid people are trying to imagine alien weirdness going on, including this desperate ignorance from Candace Owens, who thinks it’s artificial because it doesn’t melt at 30°F.

I looked at some of the comments. Many are trying to explain to her that the freezing point of water is 32°F, and that 30 is less than 32, and some mention that the temperature in Connecticut when she was horrified by frozen water was actually 25°F. Others are agreeing that yes, it’s a government or alien conspiracy.

Remember this when Candace Owens trots out another bizarre conspiracy theory. I think the lawsuit by Brigitte Macron against her is going to go well.

IMPORTANT CHANGE: the article was not written by Marc Siegel, but by someone named Michael Guillén. I was fooled by the fact that it is topped by a large photo and video of Siegel touting his new book about modern day medical miracles. Now that I’ve read that, I feel like I should also spend some time criticizing Siegel’s idiotic bullshit about miracles, but for this article, redirect your contempt at Guillén.

Dr Marc Siegel (he really is a doctor, a medical doctor) writes an article for Fox News that makes me question his competence. He is the Fox News Senior Medical Analyst, so keep that in mind when assessing future medical info from Fox News.

When our son was 4 years old, he asked my wife and me: “Can you drive to heaven?” Out of the mouth of babes, right?

It’s a question only a child would ask, but it raises a very adult question: Where exactly is the heaven described in the Bible?

As a scientist,

Stop right there. I dislike that phrase — it’s usually a prelude to an argument for authority. We don’t need to see an MD or a PhD to address an argument by a four year old, so why bring it up?

Probably because he’s conscious that he’s about to make an incredibly stupid argument. It’s actually the second worse As a scientist argument I’ve ever heard.* But this one is pretty bad.

Also, as an adult, I will say that “where is heaven” is not a particularly adult question.

I understand the importance of definitions. According to the Bible, the lowest level of heaven is Earth’s atmosphere. The mid-level heaven is outer space. The highest-level heaven is what we’re talking about: It’s where God dwells.

Yikes. The Bible is not a scientific source; he may have some ideas about definitions, but he knows nothing about the importance of sources. But OK, according to the Bible, where does the Bible talk about the atmosphere? Where does it even mention outer space? The ancient authors of the books that would be incorporated into the Bible thought we lived in a bubble of air encapsulated in a solid firmament, embedded in a universe that was full of water. It’s a bad idea to reference the Bible when trying to describe the cosmic geography.

The best you can get from the Bible is a vague notion that God is above us.

As for heaven’s location, the Bible contains many verses that describe us as looking “up” at God in heaven, and God as looking “down” at us on Earth.

Stop there. That’s good enough for a child; God is somewhere in the sky, so no you can’t drive there. Done. Unless you want to get into a serious discussion about whether Heaven even exists as a physical space, or whether a god even exists. That would be a bit challenging for most 4-year-olds.

It’s way above what your average Fox News reader can comprehend.

But no! Siegel starts talking about pop physics.

Imagine boarding a nuclear-powered rocket and traveling straight “up” into deep space. Will you ever reach a point far enough “up” into space that you finally reach heaven?

Before you laugh off the idea, consider this.

In 1929, American attorney-turned-amateur astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that galaxies are rushing away from one another like so much shrapnel from a bomb. Hubble also discovered there’s a definite pattern to how galaxies are rushing away from each other, namely: The farther “up” in space a galaxy is located — the farther away it is from Earth — the faster it’s moving away from Earth and everything else. It’s called Hubble’s Law.

What does this have to do with the existence of, the nature of, or the location of heaven?

But, here’s where it gets really interesting.

Spoiler: no, it doesn’t.

Theoretically, a galaxy that’s 273 billion trillion (273,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) miles away from Earth would move at 186,000 miles per second, which is the speed of light. That distance, way “up” there in space, is called the Cosmic Horizon.

That means you and I can never reach the Cosmic Horizon — not even aboard the most souped-up, nuclear-powered rocket imaginable — because, as Einstein explained in his theory of special relativity, only light and certain other non-material phenomena can travel at the speed of light.

The cosmic horizon is the maximum distance from which light from particles could have traveled to the observer in the age of the universe, which I think (not being a physicist myself) is about 16 billion light years away. Galaxies at the horizon are not moving at the speed of light. We cannot reach it because it is constantly receding, but…

Hey, what does this have to do with the location of heaven? Does the Bible also incorporate general relativity?

So, then, where is heaven located, exactly? It’s entirely possible heaven is located on the other side of the Cosmic Horizon. Here’s why.

Oh god. He’s not going to shut up.

One: According to modern cosmology, an entire universe exists beyond the Cosmic Horizon. But it’s permanently hidden from us because we can never reach, let alone cross over, the Cosmic Horizon.

Two: Our best astronomical observations — and Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity — indicate that time stops at the Cosmic Horizon. At that special distance, way “up” there in deep, deep, deep space, there is no past, present or future. There’s only timelessness.

Three: Unlike time, however, space does exist at and beyond the Cosmic Horizon. Which means the hidden universe beyond the Cosmic Horizon is habitable, albeit only by light and light-like entities.

Four: According to modern cosmology, the Cosmic Horizon is lined with the very oldest celestial objects in the observable universe. That means whatever exists beyond the Cosmic Horizon predates these oldest objects… predates the so-called big bang… predates the beginning of the observable universe.

One: none of that is in the Bible; two: physics would tell us that we don’t know what’s going on beyond the cosmic horizon, or that our time and space dependent notions of “what’s going on” even apply; three: but Siegel thinks physics claims that there is a habitable universe beyond it; four: what amazing bullshit.

I pity that small child getting this lecture.

Finally, Siegel sums it all up, and brings the Bible back into the discussion.

1. Heaven is, indeed, located “up” there — way above our heads and way beyond the visible, starlit universe — just as the Bible indicates.

2. Heaven is inaccessible to us mortals while we’re alive, just as the Bible indicates.

3. Heaven is inhabited by nonmaterial, timeless beings, just as the Bible indicates.

4. Heaven is the dwelling place of the One who predates the universe — the One who created the universe — just as the Bible indicates.

The Bible doesn’t say any of that.

Is this the sophisticated theology believers are always telling me about?

* The worst As a scientist claim I’ve ever heard was from Lawrence Krauss defending Jeffrey Epstein, As a scientist I always judge things on empirical evidence and he always has women ages 19 to 23 around him, but I’ve never seen anything else, so as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people. That remains the champion among bad As a scientist claims, now and possibly forever, and it even includes two As a scientist phrases in one sentence.

There is a huckster named Skyler Chan who is raising money from the tech bros in Silicon Valley to build a chain of hotels…on the moon. He has ambitious plans.

Those first two steps are just tests, delivering expandable modules to the moon. However, he is talking about building a habitat on the moon in six years, with even more extravagant plans for the future.

I’m sorry, but this is fucking insane. It’s just a grift to suck money out of techno-optimists who are already unmoored from reality. So why is Ars Technica posting an optimistic review of the idea? It’s not April First.

It sounds crazy, doesn’t it? After all, GRU Space had, as of late December when I spoke to founder Skyler Chan, a single full-time employee aside from himself. And Chan, in fact, only recently graduated from the University of California, Berkeley.

All of this could therefore be dismissed as a lark. But I must say that I am a sucker for these kinds of stories. Chan is perfectly earnest about all of this. And despite all of the talk about lunar resources, my belief is that the surest long-term commercial activity on the Moon will be lunar tourism—it would be an amazing destination.

So when I interviewed Chan, I did so with an open mind.

If you’re a sucker for these kinds of stories, you shouldn’t be writing them. Has Ars Technica no editors?

To think that lunar tourism is a hot prospect for the commercial development of the moon is ludicrous. Why would anyone want to go there like it’s a trip to Bali? Popular tourist destinations here on Earth tend to require a large support staff — there are deep infrastructure demands that you don’t see on the vacation brochures, like the small non-luxury houses of the staff, and the buses to transport them to your glamorous accommodations, and an extensive supply source for the gourmet meals. Who builds the more elaborate structure on the right? Why does it look like it has huge glass windows?

Also unreal: he explains that space travel is currently supported on two economic legs, government funding and the largesse of billionaires. He thinks he can provide a third leg by building tourist hotels that will cost people a half-million dollars per night, not including travel expenses. Who’s going to stay there? Your average middle-class college professor?

There is something wrong with people who look at the white paper put out by the promoter and think it is a serious document. I mean, this is their “master plan”.

1. Build the first hotel on the Moon. GRU solves off-world surface habitations.
2. Build America’s first Moon base (roads, mass drivers, warehouses, physical infrastructure on the Moon).
3. Repeat on Mars.
4. Once the Overton window increases and this moves from non-consensus to consensus, GRU owns property on the Moon and Mars (i.e., The Hudson’s Bay Company owning Rupert’s Land).
5. Use the money to re-invest in resource utilization systems on the Moon, Mars, asteroids, and beyond that are fed into the growing economies and civilizations in space. Reach our final form — Galactic Resource Utilization.
6. Humanity reaches Kardashev scale Type III.

Put the comic books away, kid. That’s fantasy from step 1. But hey, Ars Technica promoted it, so that’ll help con some dim-witted venture capitalist out of some cash, which will allow Skyler Chan to live the high life for a while until reality pops his bubble.

You will not be surprised to learn that Chan graduated from college in May, 2025, and that he interned at Tesla.

Here’s a fanciful artist’s imagining of the GRU Hotel.

Why does it have big windows directly to the exterior? Why is it warmly lit like a Thomas Kinkade painting? Why is there a conventional door to the outside?

Why would anyone go in or out of that fucking door, Skyler?