Bill Maher makes a not-pology

Bill Maher struck precisely the wrong tone in his recent plea for ‘forgiveness’ for his anti-vax stand — it wasn’t an admission that he had been wrong, it was a rather smarmy, self-righteous claim that he has been the open-minded one who just wants to ask the hard questions . It reminded me of nothing other than the sniffy, sanctimonious tone creationists take when they try to claim they’re just interested in the free exchange of information on both sides of their issue. It’s just another attempt to put crank pseudoscience on a par with real science.

Orac is scathing in his assessment. Maher managed to make himself look even worse on this issue.

That Bergman-Myers debate

Well.

It was a strange event. Kittywhumpus and Greg Laden have good detailed breakdowns of the debate, so you can always read those for the audience perspective. As for me, I’ve learned that you can never prepare for a debate.

I tried. I had a focus — the topic, chosen by Bergman, was “Should Intelligent Design be taught in the schools” — and what I prepared for my side was a set of arguments on that point. I used my own experience teaching biology to lay down a few principles: to teach a subject as science, you need an explanatory mechanism or theory that provides a conceptual framework for understanding the data, and you need a body of evidence, real-world observations, measurements, and experiments that you incorporate as well as you can into the theory. I explained that Intelligent Design, in the estimation of scientists and by its proponents own admission, lacked both. Therefore, it didn’t belong in the science classroom. It is not enough for a science teacher to simply declare that “some people think an intelligent agent intervened at some point in the history of some species”, she needs specifics. She needs to be able to answer questions about how and when this intervention occurred, and how we know it. I explained that whenever IDists try to concretely define what they would teach in the classroom, it’s never about their theory or their evidence, because they have none, but that it’s always reduced to a laundry list of gripes about evolution…and I predicted that that’s all we’d hear from Bergman.

I thought it was a good argument, anyway. Too bad the other guy never addressed it.

Also, I read Bergman’s dreadful long book, Slaughter of the Dissidents. It’s entirely about how cruelly Intelligent Design creationists’ careers were cut short by a reactionary establishment that unfairly silences new ideas. It’s complete BS, but I prepared brief rebuttals of some of the major instances he wrote about, like the cases of Rodney LeVake and Carolyn Crocker and Guillermo Gonzalez and a few others, just in case. There was no just in case needed.

Fortunately, I’ve come off a couple of big science meetings, so I had at the tip of my brain several pro-science case studies, good examples of theory guiding science to produce productive information. This, also, was not needed.

There was a point in the debate where I did just throw a stack of my notes over my shoulder. They were pointless.

Bergman’s argument was bizarre and irrational. We got a long biographical introduction in which he described bouncing about from atheism to faith to a different faith, and how nobody liked him because he was an ideological pariah (I felt like mentioning that there might be other, more personal reasons people avoid the crazy person, but that would have been cruel). He made concessions and seemed to think I was right that ID lacks a strong theory, but that that wasn’t important — you don’t need theory. He teaches medical school, and he just teaches the facts.

There were two linchpins to his argument, neither of which addressed the topic at hand.

One is that he had scientifically proven that there were no such thing as vestigial organs, therefore evolution is false. How did he do this? By redefining “vestigial” to mean “having no function at all”, so all he had to do was demonstrate that it did or potentially did anything to make his case. One problem: that’s not the definition. Vestigial organs are those that are greatly reduced in one species relative to a homologous organ in another species. He kept returning to the appendix, like a dog to its vomit, all night long.

He did a lot of quirky redefinitions throughout the evening. Apparently, everything is religion, and he seemed to be on the verge of claiming that teaching science in the science classroom was a violation of the separation of church and state. He had this bizarre case of a teacher somewhere who was fired for posting the periodic table in his classroom. The periodic table was his religion, you see. I could not make sense of what he was saying, or understand how it related to the topic of the debate, and I asked for confirmable details and mentioned that I’d read his book, but didn’t remember that story anywhere in it…to which he replied that it was in volume II, and that the book was just the first in a 5-volume series. My brain briefly whited out at that revelation, and there was a moment or two in which, if I’d said anything, it would have been a chain of profanities. I kept my cool, never fear.

Oh, by the way, the periodic table is irreducibly complex. That’s also why the administration hated it.

That was his second key point: everything is irreducibly complex. He has this radical, dare I say insane, version of irreducible complexity in his head in which everything except sub-atomic particles are irreducibly complex. A carbon atom, for instance, has a specific number of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and if you change those, it is no longer a carbon atom, and therefore it fits Michael Behe’s definition of IC perfectly. Here’s Behe’s definition, if you need reminding.

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.

Bergman claims that everything is IC. Which I suppose one could support with an exceptionally naive reading of the definition, in which case Behe’s argument that you need intelligent agents to create irreducibly complex systems is effectively refuted, since natural processes going on in the sun are producing irreducibly complex carbon right now. I expressed some incredulity at Bergman’s use of the term, and actually, horrendously, guiltily spent a moment defending Behe’s definition, which made me feel so dirty inside. I need a high colonic right now.

And that was it. That was his side of the debate. The only surprise left at the end was that yes, of course, Bergman puked out the “evolution leads to Hitler” argument, well past the time at which I could rip into that ugly lie. Talking to people afterwards, that seems to have been one of the most memorable moments, when Bergman briefly took off his cheerful loony yokel mask and revealed the ugly hater beneath.

Then we got a long parade of questions from both sides of the aisle (did I mention the joint was packed? It was one of the larger crowds I’ve had). Mark Borrello was a fabulous moderator — we didn’t work him too hard during the debate itself, since we both managed to hew fairly close to our allotted time slots, but he was an excellent enforcer in the Q&A, cutting short those long pronouncements we often get in these kinds of events. I did notice that he was practically choking himself after the Hitler bomb was dropped — as a historian of science himself, he would have been the perfect fellow to dismantle that nonsense, but then of course his neutrality as moderator would have been blown.

Afterwards, I joined a group from CASH and Minnesota Atheists to, I guess, celebrate. It was a total rout, I’m afraid. I have no idea what the creationists did.

And finally, we left the Twin Cities after midnight for the long drive home. I can tell I’m not going to be good for much of anything today.

(Oh, the inevitable question: yes, it was videotaped by the creationists. They said a DVD will be available. I don’t know when; somehow, I don’t think they’ll be in an enthusiastic rush to get this one out.)

You know what’s wrong with America?

Our problem is that we men don’t stand up when we pee. Obama probably sits down when he should pisseth against the wall.

This isn’t a joke. It’s what this guy seriously believes, and he’s very angry about it.

Somehow, I get the idea that Steven L. Anderson, the flaming anti-gay pastor, has these dreams in which he stands shoulder to shoulder with a long line of men, and they all unzip and flip out their penises and spray a mighty stream forth, together, with pride and joy…and he feels good about these dreams. Glory!

Simmer on low heat, stir occasionally

That’s my recipe for dealing with crackpots; feel free to use it, it’s easy.

You all may remember Vincent Fleury, the French fellow who ascribes developmental processes to swirls of cellular movement in development, who wrote a peculiar paper in a European journal of applied physics (which I mocked mercilessly), and who then went crying to fringe journalist Suzan Mazur, and then demanded withdrawal of my review and an apology. He’s done it again. I just received a copy of a letter from France, which was also sent to the vice chancellor of academic affairs of my university, demanding that I be gently chastised. He claims he is the “victim of a fierce attack”. If you really must know all the details, here are some scans of the letter.

i-db23e56d35ffc3b7c4efcc4e21715545-fleury1-thumb-200x283-22039.jpeg i-67eacecda0e3810c147edb37e5a668d6-fleury2-thumb-200x283-22042.jpeg

Just a gentle hint for future complaints: the vice chancellor’s name is Cheryl Contant, not “Content”, and she should be addressed as Dr Contant, not Mrs Content. You’re welcome.

Otherwise, there’s nothing in his letters that I think needs to be answered.

The world is ending, again

I’m sorry to have to mention this again, but there’s a chance the world will end on Wednesday. The same guy with the website that was designed to make you vomit from your eye sockets, who has been predicting the imminent end of the world over and over again, is predicting the apocalypse again.

Ho hum.

Anyway, I think he’s been stung by his repeated failures, and this time he’s imbedded his prediction in a conditional. Smart move. Expect further sliding deadlines for the apocalypse, all coupled to improbable pre-conditions. For instance, if a yeti starts nesting in my armpit hair, you should buy a lottery ticket, because you’re guaranteed to win.

Here’s the latest prediction.

WARNING:

If an economic collapse occurs on 11/9/2009,

THEN:

The Rapture takes place on 11/11/2009!

Color styles are preserved exactly as they are on the source web page, because that’s what adds the weight of credibility to his words.

Rudeness required

The concern trolls are very concerned. They are responding to my posting of Sonia/Tanja/Rosa/Whoevera Jensen’s crazy email — she’s disabled! She’s mentally ill! It’s cruel to post her wacky screeds publicly where people will point and laugh! You’re picking on her! <ChrisCrocker>LEAVE SONIA ALONE!!!</ChrisCrocker>

No.

Crazy people — and I don’t mean clinically ill people who need medical/psychiatric help — are everywhere, and they are saying and doing stupid things, and they are sending their nonsense to me, and they are engaging in their foolishness in public places where they affect the normal, non-crazy, mostly sensible people. Announcing that they are mildly nuts is not a reasonable excuse to hold off on criticizing them. That logic would mean we’d have to restrain ourselves from mocking Glenn Beck or rebuking Michele Bachmann. They’re no less crazy than Sonia Jensen, after all.

My mailbox would depress you. I think I am notified about just about every dufus who pops up and demands public respect for his delusions. Take the bus driver in Atlanta who decided he wouldn’t let passengers off his bus if they wouldn’t pray with him.

A MARTA bus driver is on suspension following allegations that he forced passengers to pray before allowing them to exit the bus.

Christopher James was one of those passengers. James said, initially, he thought something was wrong when he rang the bell to get off the bus and the door didn’t open.

James said the bus driver asked him and three other passengers to join hands in prayer. James said the driver prayed with the group for about four minutes.

Suspend him or <ChrisCrocker>LEAVE THE BUS DRIVER ALONE!!!</ChrisCrocker>?

Or how about the schoolteacher who thinks the Book of Revelation has warned her about fingerprints?

A 22-year veteran kindergarten teacher in the Texas Bible Belt could lose her job for refusing, on religious grounds, to give fingerprints under a state law requiring them.

The evangelical Christian, Pam McLaurin, is fighting a looming suspension, claiming that fingerprinting amounts to the “Mark of the Beast,” and hence is a violation of her First Amendment right to practice her religion. Her case is similar to a lawsuit by a group of Michigan farmers, some of them Amish, challenging rules requiring the tagging of livestock with RFID chips, saying the devices are also the devil’s mark.

The latest case is the first in which a teacher is refusing fingerprinting on religious grounds, the woman’s lawyer said. The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to decide whether the First Amendment is implicated in fingerprinting, especially at a time when states, local governments and civic organizations are increasingly making them mandatory for anyone wanting to drive a car or coach a youth basketball team.

McLaurin’s lawsuit against the Texas Education Agency cites various passages of Revelation, the final book of The Bible:

He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand and on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name…. Then a third angel followed them saying with a loud voice — if anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God…. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.

Fire her or <ChrisCrocker>LEAVE THE SCHOOLTEACHER ALONE!!!</ChrisCrocker>?

I also get email from Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association. He’s very excited; Christmas is victorious!

Governor gets message, big victory for Christmas!

Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear did not like a Christmas tree being called a Christmas tree. So he changed it. According to the Associated Press, Gov. Beshear recently decided the tree on the Capitol lawn in Frankfort, for 2009, should be called a “holiday” tree.

American Family Association immediately went to work against the forces of political correctness who wanted to remove the word “Christmas” from the Christmas season. Within hours, we sent an email alert into the Bluegrass State asking our 38,370 AFA Action Alert friends to call and e-mail Governor Beshear.

Point and laugh, and call the tree we atheists put up in our homes a Christmas tree too, or <ChrisCrocker>LEAVE AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION ALONE!!!</ChrisCrocker>?

Or how about this one? It turns out that Iraqi police are searching for bombs…with dowsing rods. A British company is making bank selling these useless gadgets to gullible — and now endangered — people with a risky job.

Despite major bombings that have rattled the nation, and fears of rising violence as American troops withdraw, Iraq’s security forces have been relying on a device to detect bombs and weapons that the United States military and technical experts say is useless.

The sensor device, known as the ADE 651, from $16,500 to $60,000 each. Iraq has bought more than 1,500 of the devices.
The small hand-held wand, with a telescopic antenna on a swivel, is being used at hundreds of checkpoints in Iraq. But the device works “on the same principle as a Ouija board” — the power of suggestion — said a retired United States Air Force officer, Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack, who described the wand as nothing more than an explosives divining rod.

…

Aqeel al-Turaihi, the inspector general for the Ministry of the Interior, reported that the ministry bought 800 of the devices from a company called ATSC (UK) Ltd. for $32 million in 2008, and an unspecified larger quantity for $53 million. Mr. Turaihi said Iraqi officials paid up to $60,000 apiece, when the wands could be purchased for as little as $18,500. He said he had begun an investigation into the no-bid contracts with ATSC.

Scream and yell that their stupidity is putting their lives on the line, prosecute the con artists selling these cheap and useless gadgets, or <ChrisCrocker>LEAVE THE BOMB DOWSERS ALONE!!!</ChrisCrocker>?

I guess I’m one of those people who will continue to say that stupidity, ignorance, and even mental illness do not demand that people stand silent when victims of those afflictions thrust themselves forward and demand respect for their views. Polite silence and encouraging words of reassurance is how we got to Idiot America in the first place.

I get email

Some crazy lady in British Columbia named either Sonia or Tanja Jensen has me on a mailing list. I’m in good company; also on the list are the president of my university, Bob Bruininks, as well as Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, the Governor of Alaska, Greenpeace, Angela Merkel, and the German Balkan Trust. Strangely, NASA is not on the list. Without exception, all of her emails are raving mad. Here’s her latest, which I think is one of the finest examples of her output.

COULD NASA CAUSE THE SUDDEN DEATH OF EVERY LIVING THING ON EARTH? – “… the moon will not give its light …” Matthew 24:27-29

DEAR NASA:
DO YOU REALIZE BOMBING THE MOON COULD CAUSE THE SUDDEN DEATH OF EVERY LIVING THING ON EARTH, INCLUDING MANKIND. YOU COULD ALSO INTERFERE WITH THE MOON’S ABILITY TO LIGHT UP THE EARTH AT NIGHT, SO DON’T COMPROMISE THE PLANETS BY RECKLESSLY BOMBING THE MOON!

I saw on the OCTOBER 9, 2009 news that NASA has been bombing the moon to see if there is water on it. You can’t find water by bombing! See the article below.

I heard the bomb did not detonate and is lodged inside the moon’s crater. I heard NASA sent another bomb to the moon last week (October 31), but the rocket malfunctioned.

If there is a live, unexploded bomb in the moon’s crater and another bomb is driven into it, this could cause a large nuclear reaction on the moon, perhaps causing a huge chunk of the moon to dislodge and hurtle through space.

That’s not a good idea, as the bomb could push the moon out of orbit and cause part or all of it to crash, with a worst case senario, to crash into the sun or the earth!

A collision of moon rock with the earth could cause such a dust cloud, that it could affect the earth’s atmosphere and destroy our air supply.

NASA has an underground bunker with life support, the human race does not. Don’t euthanize the human race by bombing planets!

NASA, you don’t have the right to destroy the human race by driving pieces of planets into space or into the earth, affecting us all.

The Bible prophesied the moon would not give it’s light at the end time at Matthew 24:27-29:

“For just as the lightening comes from the west, so shall the coming of the son of man be … the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.”

Jesus said at the ‘end time’, mankind would be separated into the ‘wheat’ and the ‘weeds’. In other words, if we don’t repent of our reckless chicanery, we will be destroyed.

HARVEST

“Gather My Godly Ones to Me”
Psalms 50:5,6 says: “Gather My Godly ones to Me, those who have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice. And the heavens declare His righteousness, for God Himself is judge.”

“Be Ashamed of Your Harvest”
Jeremiah 12:13 says: “They have sown wheat and have reaped thorns, they have strained themselves to no profit. But be ashamed of your harvest because of the fierce anger of YHWH.”

“The Workers are Few”
Matthew 11:37 says: “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.”

“Allow Both to Grow Together”
At Matthew 13:26-30, Jesus said: “But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. … And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ But he said, ‘No, for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I shall say to the reapers, ‘First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn’.”

“The Harvest Has Come”
Mark 4:26-29 states: “The Kingdom of God is like a man who casts seed upon the ground and goes to bed at night and gets up by day, and the seed sprouts up and grows, how, he himself does not know …. But when the crop permits, he immediately puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.”

“He Who Does Not Gather With Me Scatters”

Luke 11:23 says: “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.”

“The Crop for Eternal Life”

John 4:35-38 says: “I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields. They are ripe for harvest. Even now the reaper draws his wages, even now he harvests the crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together. Thus the saying ‘One sows and another reaps’ is true. I sent you to reap what you have not worked for. Others have done the hard work and you have reaped the benefits of their labor.”

GATHER THE ELECT
“His Spirit Has Gathered Them”
Isaiah 14:16,17 says: “Seek from the book of YHWH, and read: Not one of these will be missing; none will lack its mate. For His mouth has commanded, and His spirit has gathered them. And He has cast the lot for them, and His hand has divided it to them by line. They shall possess it forever; from generation to generation they shall dwell in it.”

“For the Sake of the Elect, Those Days Will Be Shortened”
Jesus said at Matthew 24:21,22: “For then there will be great distress, unequalled from the beginning of the world until now – and never to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.

“So as to Mislead, if Possible, Even the Elect”
Matthew 24:24 says: “For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.”

“They Will Gather His Elect from the Four Winds”
Matthew 24:31 says: “He will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.”

“Lead Astray, if Possible, the Elect”
Jesus warned at Mark 13:22: “… false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead astray, if possible, the elect.”

“Justice for His Elect”
Luke 18:7 says: “Will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to him day and night, and will He delay long over them?”

If we bomb the moon, we could throw it out of orbit, it could terrify mankind. Luke 21:25,26 confirms this:
“Men will faint from terror …”

Please find attached my bible summary. Please look up END TIME in my summary attached and see that Jesus, the true prophet, and our Saviour, prophesied about these things occuring over 2,000 years ago.

The Bible’s message does offer hope, as at Daniel 2:44, God promised a kingdom that ‘will never be brought to ruin’ and that he would ‘wipe the tears from our eyes’ … ‘death and mourning will be no more’

Please look these scriptures up in my attached Bible summary!

God loves each and every one of us and the Bible offers hope for all!!

Let’s start to follow the Golden Rule and ‘love god and our neighbour’!

Here’s the article about the bombing of the moon that I took from the internet:

[There was no link to any article actually included–pzm]

More topics
Home Inspector Reviews. | Permission | Spp | Space Junk | Bomb Threat
Who gave NASA permission to bomb the moon? Is it legal for NASA to bomb the moon?

It is not like their latest quest to mine for water on the moon was based on the major consensus of the American people. I think I speak for many when I say I was horrified by NASA’s latest expedition.

It reminded me of the 2008 Olympic event held in Beijing, where Chinese officials strategically attempted to control the weather with cloud seeding. They had rockets filled with pellets of Silver Iodide on stand by just in case any rain clouds were to approach Beijing. If ominous weather

were to threaten the Olympic events Chinese officials would give the OK to shoot the rockets into the atmosphere in order to make the rain clouds dump out all of its precipitation before reaching Beijing. What ramifications would this have had on the atmosphere we share? How would traces of silver iodide impact our lungs, our ozone, our water, or those with sensitive respiratory ailments, etc?

U.S. flags have been emblematically planted on the Moon, although no nation can claim ownership of any part of the Moon’s surface. According to the World Space Guide there are currently 11 countries sponsoring space agencies with space launch capabilities. 4 of those 11 countries have space agencies with manned spaceflight capability.

Reasonable men know it’s wrong to travel to the moon, bomb it or otherwise interfere with it’s orbit, as it is a lights for our night sky, influences the tides and is a valuable planet.

Let’s not interfere with the ecology of the moon!

Sincerely,

Tanja Jensen

There’s logic, and then there’s creationist logic

This argument is a new one on me.

i-58d257a10578172b1dca2f09c7338304-middlefinger.jpeg

If you can’t read it, click on it to see a larger original. I can try to summarize it, though. The middle finger is the longest finger on the human hand, and da Vinci drew it in his famous figure of Vitruvian Man, which illustrates ideal proportions…therefore, the Big Bang didn’t happen.

I think that if you do a lot of drugs, that will make sense.

I like Jerry Coyne’s explanation better.

Charlene Werner wants to go hide

You all laughed at this video of Charlene Werner explaining the physics of homeopathy.

But did you know that videos like this, where kooks are caught in the act, are endangered? It turns out that kooks don’t like it when their words are made public, especially when those words are so loony that they invite universal derision. The person who put that video on youtube has been sent an odd letter:

Dr Charlene Werner

I thought you would like to know that you will be contacted by Dr Werner’s Attorney shortly regarding her video. The posting of this video is in violation of copyright laws. We are aware that you have had this video up since March of ’08 however I suggest you delete it immediately.

Jayson Patrick

(This was sent to XanSimpson, not Charlene Werner, so the salutation is a bit confusing.)

Anyway, XanSimpson wants to know what to do. As is common practice in these cases, the answer is obvious: everyone who can should make a copy of the video. More people should link to it. Spread the word and share the information — let her threat of a takedown lead to greater dissemination of her words.

Welcome to the internet, Charlene.

Dinesh D’Souza promised me an afterlife, and all I got were the same old cheap lies

I am so disappointed. The little evangelical goober has a new book that promises to provide evidence of life after death — it’s right in the title, Life After Death: The Evidence — but he doesn’t seem to have, you know, actually provided any evidence. Newsweek has a summary of his arguments.

The “evidence,” of necessity, is indirect: D’Souza doesn’t claim to have communicated with anyone who has died, and he doesn’t expect to. Instead, he looks to the human heart, and finds therein a universal moral code underlying acts of self-sacrifice and charity that appear to run counter to the Darwinian imperative to outcompete thy neighbor. This is a time-honored argument for the existence of a God who created human beings in his image and imbued them with a moral sense, as well as the free will to follow, or ignore, it. Berlinski uses the argument in his book, and Collins credits it with turning him from atheism to evangelical Christianity. (D’Souza acknowledges that the prominent atheist Richard Dawkins has offered an evolutionary explanation for human goodness, but he doesn’t buy it.) In a Jesuitical display that does credit to his reputation as “an Indian William F. Buckley Jr.,” D’Souza turns to his advantage one of the atheists’ favorite arguments, God’s apparent tolerance for human suffering. Precisely because evil so often goes unpunished in this world, he asserts, the moral code must reflect another reality, in which souls are judged, punished, or rewarded after death. “The postulate of an afterlife enables us to make sense of this life,” he writes. It worked for Dante, didn’t it?

The universal moral code argument is so tired. No, we don’t need a magic man in the sky to implant puppet strings in our brains to make us do good, and as the reviewer mentions, we have perfectly reasonable natural explanations that fit the phenomenon just fine. But even beyond that, an external-sourced moral code wouldn’t say anything about an afterlife. If I built a robot and included in its circuitry some code that inclined it to avoid colliding with cats, that does not imply that it is therefore eternal and will outlast any later encounters with a sledgehammer and a scrapheap.

The remainder of his argument is built on air. “If there is a god, and if there is an afterlife, and if there is judgment of earthly acts after death, then there is an afterlife” is an abomination of circularity and unsupported presuppositions.

But wait! There’s more! And it gets worse!

And if that’s not enough to convince you, D’Souza provides a checklist of benefits from believing in life after death: it keeps us honest, gives our lives “a sense of hope and purpose”–and “surveys show” that believers have better sex. It provides “a mechanism to teach our children right from wrong”–a mechanism that those who have been subjected to it tend to describe as a neurotic lifelong fear of going to Hell. And if your smart-alecky kid, full of all that Galileo stuff they get in school nowadays, should ask just where this Judgment business takes place, D’Souza provides you with a response. It happens in the multiverse, the infinitely multiplying complex of worlds predicted by some versions of quantum theory. In the multiverse, physical laws can take on different values, and matter itself may have a different form, so “there is nothing in physics to contradict the idea that we can live beyond death in other realms with bodies that are unlike the bodies we now possess.”

The argument from consequences is a non-starter, too. For instance, I have my doubts about the results of surveys about sex in populations where sexual behavior is both obligatory and a source of much angst about its effects on chances for a happy afterlife, but even if we were to think that the claim that believers have better sex, it doesn’t imply in any way that there is a god or an afterlife. Dinish D’Souza might have more satisfying orgasms if he fantasizes about having sex with Ann Coulter while he masturbates, but that does not mean that he is therefore having sex with Ann Coulter. It wouldn’t matter how highly he rated his onanistic experiences, it doesn’t provide any evidence of actual intercourse with a real live human (or in the case of Coulter, simulacrum thereof) female. Similarly, if his fantasies are all about a muscular bearded Jesus in a loin cloth sweeping him into his arms and teaching him the true meaning of ecstasy, that might make him feel good, but it is not evidence that Jesus loves him. Not even in a manly way.

And seriously…he’s going to trot out quantum physics as evidence for an afterlife? Man, join the crowd of crazies who have turned “quantum” into the “abracadabra” of the 21st century.

I don’t think I need to read his book if that is the quality of his reasoning. But if any of you stumble across it and find a compelling scrap of evidence that the reviewer neglected to pass along, let us know. If the above examples are any indication, they’ll be hilarious.