Tucker Carlson will continue O’Reilly’s war on atheism

Now that the conservative establishment has those Muslims all sorted (kick ’em out!), the Hispanics under control (build a wall…I mean, fence!), and the black population terrorized (just shoot them), and the transgender kids timed to explode (don’t ever let them go to the bathroom and wait for them to pop) it’s time start tightening the screws on the atheists again. I don’t think they’re particularly strongly targeting us, especially not in light of what’s being done to other minority groups, but that there is simply a rising tide of intolerance for non-white, non-Christian, non-asshole people. So Tucker Carlson had Amanda Knief of American Atheists on to complain about the removal of a park bench that said “Men Who Aren’t Governed by God Will Be Governed by Tyrants”.

I have to say that that slogan is discriminatory against unbelievers — and it’s false as well. I think the example of history says that believers are fairly susceptible to tyranny, and the more fanatical the belief, the more likely their tyrants will be incredibly awful. Flip it around; if a city put a park bench that said “Men Governed by God Are Governed by a Tyrant”, it would be seen as strongly anti-religious, and Tucker Carlson would be demanding that it be removed.

As for Tucker Carlson, he’s the replacement for O’Reilly. O’Reilly was stupid and would would address these kinds of issues with mindless blustering anger, but Carlson isn’t any better. His approach is to squint and babble and act like he doesn’t understand what the person he’s interviewing is saying — and he probably doesn’t. I guess Fox News hosts have to be dumbasses so their audience can identify with them.

Amanda Knief was good, and she’s a good choice to go on these kinds of shows. She’s one of the nicest people in the movement — she’s a lawyer and an atheist, so she’s shattering both stereotypes by being friendly and nice — but she also wasn’t going to let Carlson’s inanities slide by, answering everything patiently and with a smile. David Silverman is good if you want a combative personality fighting back on the screen, but Amanda is better if you want someone who’ll defuse the anger.

The Army has enough trouble

Trump has selected Mark Green to be Secretary of the Army. What do you think? Do you think he’s an idiot?

He’s an idiot. He spoke at a church event in Cincinnati two years ago, and hoo boy, he’s a grade A ignoramus.

The evolutionists have their bad argument, too, Green said. They say, ‘Well, I can’t explain how it went from this to incredibly complex, so it must have been billions of years.’ That’s kind of where they put their faith. The truth of the matter is — is the second law of thermo-fluid dynamics says that the world progresses from order to disorder not disorder to order.

If you put a lawn mower out in your yard and a hundred years come back, it’s rusted and falling apart. You can’t put parts out there and a hundred years later it’s gonna come back together. That is a violation of a law of thermodynamics. A physical law that exists in the universe.

It’s bad enough he dredges up that often debunked argument from misunderstanding thermodynamics, but thermo-fluid dynamics? I don’t know what that is. I think he saw an opportunity to throw in two more syllables to make it somehow sound more sciencey, but all he accomplished was to show that he understands neither thermodynamics nor fluid dynamics.

He has also said, If you poll the psychiatrists, they’re going to tell you that transgender is a disease. Sure, why not. In for a penny, in for a pound. If you’re going to lie and make shit up in the Trump administration, go big.

You might also want to read this article from Robert Bateman, who has become one of my regular reads for a rational military perspective. He points out how bad personnel decisions have long-lasting consequences on military readiness and competence.

This counts as a very bad decision.

Who ya gonna blame?

I’m used to hearing complaints that those damned immigrants, especially the Muslim ones, are bringing White America down. How about when the shoe is on the other foot, though? Minnesota has a lot of Somali immigrants who are predominantly Muslim, and recently it’s in the news that there is a small epidemic of measles sweeping through that community, because they’re not getting properly vaccinated. Must be some religious thing, right?

Wrong. It’s homegrown Western ignorance. It seems the Koran doesn’t have much to say about autism or vaccinations, but once you move to America, the parasites descend upon you and fill your head with lies about how your kids will be all horribly autistic if you protect them against contagious disease.

So worried Somali-Americans got lectured at by Mark Blaxill. Who is he, you might ask?

Blaxill is not a scientist. Nor is he a doctor, though he plays one at SafeMinds. Blaxill is a former businessman turned spokesperson for the anti-vaccinationist movement (Vice President of SafeMinds). Fancies himself a self-made expert epidemiologist. In the grips of extreme confirmation bias (science doesn’t support his views, hence scientists are probably mislead by their own personal interests — having no clue as to how a controlled experiment is carried out).

Liar, crank and conspiracy theorist (Big Pharma is out to get us — Blaxill actually terms it the “autism holocaust”), as discussed here; also a professional shifter of goalposts (without necessarily being aware of it himself).

Among his most prominent techniques are faking statistics to show an explosion in autism the last thirty years, and looking at new studies to determine whether they are scientifically “solid” or not (meaning he determines whether they can be interpreted as agreeing with his lunacy or not).

Oddly, he doesn’t look Somali or Muslim. He is going to kill people with misinformation, though.

How much free speech do you want for free?

The Free Speech Absolutists are in a tizzy again, because Ann Coulter isn’t going to speak at Berkeley. The usual cliches are being deployed.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Very noble.

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” How can anyone oppose liberty?

“One of the problems with defending free speech is you often have to defend people that you find to be outrageous and unpleasant and disgusting.” Definitely the case here.

OK, let’s do it! Absolute, total, complete Free Speech on college campuses! Anyone and everyone can say whatever they want, any time they want, you can have an auditorium of your choice, you can book it for as long as you want!

One catch. You want infinite free speech on campus, you have to give us infinite money, infinite time, infinite resources. Fair enough?

Somehow, I don’t think it’s coming. Especially since the same people who want to see Ann Coulter given a privileged spot on the non-infinite roster of available speaking engagements are the people who under other circumstances complain bitterly about diversity. The rage always seems to rise on behalf of far-right asshats and Nazis, like Coulter or Yiannopoulos, have you noticed?

But even if we could accommodate everyone and every single point of view, the result has a name: it’s called cacophony. I don’t see how that is useful or constructive. Universities have a mission of promoting education; should we, in the name of Free Speech, insist that we also promote ignorance? That would be incoherent.

Universities are not neutral on all issues, nor should they be. We try to encourage open-mindedness; you can’t do that by also opening the door to those who encourage the closing of minds. We try to serve a diverse community; that doesn’t work if you take a disinterested position on purveyors of hate and bigotry. We aim to be selective and teach the best ideas that have the support of an educated, informed group…the antithesis of indiscriminate acceptance of bad, unsupported, rejected falsehoods. Coulter has nothing to contribute.

I know what’s next: Marketplace of ideas! Exposing students to novel points of view! The university should take students out of their comfort zone!

This is true. We do that all the time. I introduced my students to epistasis last week — discomfort and confusion were sown everywhere. It was good. But none of these arguments apply to Ann Coulter.

We, and the students, all know exactly what kind of provocative bullshit she’s going to say. She’s got a syndicated opinion column, she’s written 12 books, she regularly appears on television. I’ve got one of her books, a signed copy, on a shelf in my office because a student brought it back for me. She is a known quantity. That’s why people protest her appearances! They aren’t saying, “please keep me ignorant and unaware of this person and what she has to say”, they are saying “I am already fully aware of Ann Coulter’s perspective, and why are you giving her more money to stand in front of us and babble her hateful drivel?” It’s not as if Ann Coulter has lacked the ability to make her views known.

I mean, if you’re saying we can learn something new and interesting from an Ann Coulter talk, I have to point out that a) she is not a scholar with an insightful, well-researched position, b) we’re already well-steeped in her kind of godawful discourse, and c) I have to question your competence in critically evaluating the world of ideas if you think she has anything worthwhile to contribute.

Further, if you think being a place for education and intelligence and learning means you’re supposed to be wide open and completely neutral on everything, letting every voice through unfiltered, you don’t understand the university. I’ll give you two words: critical analysis. The university will examine your ideas, all right, and it will judge them. Nazis don’t get to come back and demand a do-over and a new grade.

Those protests? Those are students exercising their intelligence, and then going into the public square to exercise their free speech. Why? Did you think free speech meant freedom from criticism?

Remember the old days, when atheism was a philosophy leading to a bright, rational future?

It’s something of a standing joke that it is so common to see priests outed as pedophiles — it’s as if their religion doesn’t actually do anything to promote moral behavior. That individual priests are repulsive in their behavior doesn’t necessarily indict their faith as contributing to the problem, though. What does is when their religious hierarchy permits or enables it, or makes excuses for it, or ignores the problem altogether.

So I’m dismayed to read this story about identifying the founder of the Redpill Subreddit, a vile online sanctuary for misogynistic abusive men. The Daily Beast did a thorough job of tracking down the creator; read the article and there is more than enough evidence that Robert Fisher is the name of the man who built “the web’s most popular online destination for pickup artistry and men’s rights activists, The Red Pill”.

It turns out he’s a Republican. Check, no surprise there.

He’s a computer nerd and businessman, check.

He’s been elected to his state Congress, check.

Aaaaaand…he’s an atheist. Check, and no surprise, I’m sorry to say. Online, he went by the alias Pk_atheist.

A post by Pk_atheist in the early days of the forum advertises the author’s blog, Dating American, a blog that immediately precipitated the establishment of The Red Pill in 2012 and which was “dedicated to the woes of dating in the American culture.” On the “about the author” section of Dating American, the author, who calls himself “Desmond,” promotes two other blogs he’s “authored”: Existential Vortex and Explain God. Performing a search of the unique URL for Existential Vortex led to a comment on an ex-Christian message board again advertising the blog, existentialvortex.blogspot.com.

Futrelle summarizes his repellent misogyny. He’s simply a terrible person. He’s a perfectly acceptable atheist, of course, as I’m sure many will tell me. He’s a person who doesn’t believe in gods, and that’s all it takes to be an atheist, and the amoral contingent within movement atheism will take this as good evidence that my pleas for the atheist movement to adopt some degree of moral responsibility, to regard acceptance of the natural world and rejection of the supernatural as a proper foundation for justifying ethical behavior, are completely wrong.

I’m beginning to be swayed to agreement.

Unfortunately, if this movement is willing to accept Robert Fisher as a member in good standing, if we are so pleased with the absence of any kind of ethical stance to this collection of random people united by one trivial idea, if this is nothing but a granfalloon that gives a tacit welcome to anyone, no matter how vile, then…

Why would anyone want to be identified as an atheist?

I mean, it’s not as if atheism does anything to promote moral behavior, and a hell of a lot of atheists treat it as a point of pride that their identity lacks any expectations beyond not believing in deities. If I will condemn the Catholics for condoning the rape of children, why would I want to be part of a movement that implicitly condones the rape and harassment of women, with many of its members gladly joining misogynistic fora on YouTube and Reddit? It is looking rather pointless.

Here’s what’s going to kill atheism dead in its tracks

Atheists who can say it’s “refreshing” and that Trump is “the least religious president to occupy the White House since Thomas Jefferson”, and that that is a positive progression. Also, that the atheist saying such nonsense is Michael Shermer, who still has a following.

He’s careful not to claim Trump as a fellow atheist, fortunately, but instead thinks it’s great that he such a shallow, ignorant follower of vague religious impulses that it makes him more representative of the electorate.

The president’s distance from religion is hugely refreshing. It also makes him more traditionally “American,” in at least one respect, than any other modern president.

But the Religious Right claims him, and voted for him, and why? Because they’re really good at projection, viewing him as one of their own, or at least working towards a common goal. Sound familiar? That’s because Shermer is doing the same thing, looking at an incompetent narcissist and projecting his own views on to him, which actually isn’t much of a stretch. Another way of looking at it is that it isn’t religion or lack thereof which allows some people to see Trump as reflecting their perspective, it’s self-centeredness.

Shermer also sees this as a positive trend towards greater secularization.

Trump was elected president despite being the least religious major candidate in the 2016 field. Looked at this way, Trump isn’t the evangelicals’ savior. He’s just another data point in America’s long march away from religion.

Trump pandered openly to the Religious Right. He got the endorsement of James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Robert Jeffress, and Jerry Falwell Jr. He is against women’s right to choose, and wants to shut down Planned Parenthood. He’s a racist who appoints racists to positions of power. He’s a temperamental militarist. He despises science and wants the phrase “climate change” expunged from our scientific institutions. He has Betsy Devos working to dismantle our educational system. He appointed as Vice President a Christian dominionist and patriarchal tool who dreams of oppressing the LGBTQ community.

What, in all that, sounds like a march away from religion?

Meanwhile, of the other major candidates in the last election, Hillary Clinton seems to be a sincere church-going Christian, but it was not an issue in her campaign, and she did not advocate for issues that would endear her to religious conservatives. Bernie Sanders is Jewish, his religion was downplayed, and said he was “not particularly religious” and that “I am not actively involved in organized religion”.

Yet Shermer claims that Trump was the least religious candidate? Bullshit.

Furthermore, if a Donald Trump is the result of increasing the secularization of our political leaders, maybe it isn’t such a good idea to promote more secularization. I don’t think he is at all representative of secular, non-religious, or atheist ideals — and it’s flaming idiocy to claim he is — but it’s the kiss of death to claim him as one of our own.

It also doesn’t help that atheism seems to self-select for horrible people as their chosen spokesmen.

Celeb uses “celeb” as an insult

@WilliamShatner is, by definition a celebrity and nothing else. He’s an actor with a terrible reputation as an actor — he’s the hammiest of the hammy. It’s not as if he has any other qualifications. But now he’s dismissing a ‘celeb’ oncologist.

Oh, yeah, a celebrity doc!

The ‘celebrity’ doc is … Orac, aka David Gorski? My gosh, I know him! I’ve had a beer with him! And I failed to get his autograph!

Although, to be perfectly honest, he actually seems like a fairly normal person, a working M.D. with a brain he exercises on his blogs. If I run into him, I doubt that I’ll go all starry-eyed…although I have to admit, getting hated by Captain Kirk is kind of an accomplishment, if not quite as impressive as earning a professional degree and working to save lives every day.

Shatner, though, is acting like a world-class dumbass. Oh, excuse me, I said “acting” — I mean, “being”, because what he does doesn’t exactly warrant recognition as acting. It is kind of amusing that he thinks accusing someone of being a celebrity is deprecatory, and that he derides a real doctor by citing Mike Adams, the “Health Ranger”, as a source.

A little Saturday morning nonsense: iridology and sclerology?

Somehow, I found myself looking at iridology diagrams. Iridologists claim that the surface of the iris is connected to every organ in the body, so the detailed pattern of flecks and lines and spots in the colored portion of your eye is a map to your health, as good as an X-ray or MRI. They actually do get quite specific.

iridology1

From there I stumbled onto sclerology — these sclerologists claim the map is in the whites of your eyes, and that the network of blood vessels, for instance, tells you all you need to know about the state of your body.

sclerology

Why, just this morning, I got up, looked in the mirror at my rheumy bloodshot eyes, and learned instantly that I was a walking tumorous mass that apparently was simultaneously exploded and crushed in a tragic farm machinery accident yesterday. It was terrible.

But this is just patent bullshit, every bit of it.

For one, we’ve taken eyes apart and looked. There is no connection between eyes and every other organ; the iris is innervated via the ciliary ganglion (the parasympathetic pathway) and the superior cervical ganglion (sympathetic). There are patterns to the capillaries of the eye, but they are more for efficient circulation of the blood than reflecting a mystical connection to your pancreas.

These maps owe more than a little to the model of the cerebral homunculus, which shows the targets of innervation by the sensorimotor cortex. That makes sense. There are necessary connections that the brain makes to control or receive input from the periphery. There are no such necessary associations with the eye. Also, those maps were made with thorough experimental and observational analyses of thousands and thousands of people — functional deficits were mapped to stroke lesions, and focal stimulation of brain regions were found to lead to specific sensory and motor responses. We’ve got data to back up the idea of how brains are connected to body parts.

And then there’s the plagiarism: why are the sclera and iris maps so similar, with bowels below and brain above, and heart central lateral and lungs central medial? It looks like someone invented a pattern for one part of the eye, and then a copy cat con artist stole it and redrew it for another part of the eye. And look at the pretense of precision! Do you believe the pituitary is associated with some specific point at about 11:30, while the ego is found at 11:10?

I confess, my ego compelled me to go look in a mirror for my ego. Couldn’t find it. My ego is just shattered now.

It’s still impressive in a pseudoscientific way. None of these maps are constructed by scientific methods — carefully replication of meticulous empiricism — and are totally lacking in any kind of observational foundation. You can just sit down and make stuff up, and if it’s flashy enough and apes the lingo of real scientists, someone will believe it enough that they’ll pay real money to a quack.