post – Page 3 – Good Reason

Category: post (page 3 of 125)

Is he gone yet?

21 February 2014 / Daniel Midgley / 1 Comment

Orientation Day has come around again at my university, which means religious groups are canvassing. And that includes a huge group of Mormon elders and sisters. They’re nice, but it doesn’t seem honest that they form an ad hoc campus club (the LDSSA) that never does anything during the semester. It’s almost like it’s — gosh — a front for getting missionaries onto campus. Oh well, Mormons gotta morm.

I was chatting with one of them, and then this happened.

And here it is: https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies

Discussion with links: http://goodreasonblog.com/2014/02/the-lds-statement-on-dna-and-book-of/

Scott Hutchison of Frightened Rabbit speaks on atheism, doubt, and life

8 February 2014 / Daniel Midgley / Comments Off

I recently got the chance to speak with Scott Hutchison in an interview for RTRfm. He’s the frontman for the acclaimed Scottish indie band Frightened Rabbit.

I’d noticed that some of their songs discuss atheism, most recently the song ‘Late March, Death March’ from the album Pedestrian Verse, with its lyric “There isn’t a god, so I’ll save my breath” and “So unfurrow that brow, and plant those seeds of doubt.”

So I decided to ask Scott about it. This part didn’t make it into the interview, so here it is.

Your browser does not support the audio element. Upgrade your browser to one that does

Link to file, if the player isn’t working.

If you’d like to hear the rest of the interview, it’s on the RTRfm website.

The LDS statement on DNA and the Book of Mormon

2 February 2014 / Daniel Midgley / 4 Comments

The LDS Church dropped their latest Big Essay this Friday. Friday’s the day that PR organisations drop press releases that they hope won’t attract a lot of attention. And that makes sense, because I don’t think anyone at Church HQ was looking forward to writing this one. It’s on DNA and the Book of Mormon.

There have already been some takedowns and discussion on the individual points it makes, and I’m not a population geneticist, so I’ll just defer to them.

But from my perspective, here are the interesting bits. In the second paragraph, we hit this:

Although the primary purpose of the Book of Mormon is more spiritual than historical, some people have wondered whether the migrations it describes are compatible with scientific studies of ancient America.

This was so jaw-dropping, I had to read it a couple of times. Are they actually backing away from the historicity of the Book of Mormon? It’s a very common tactic in apologetics to kick things a rung or two up the ladder of abstraction so they can’t be falsified, but this is a shift that I’ve never even seen hinted at. Weakening the historical case for the Book of Mormon is one step away from saying it didn’t happen. And that makes me wonder if church leaders even believe it anymore. Make no mistake, this is a meme to watch in the coming years.

Another tack I noticed is the Church’s retreat into obscurantism. Notice the kind of language they use:

Nothing is known about the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples…

DNA studies cannot be used decisively to either affirm or reject the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon provides little direct information about cultural contact between the peoples it describes and others who may have lived nearby.

Nothing is known about the extent of intermarriage and genetic mixing between Book of Mormon peoples or their descendants and other inhabitants of the Americas…

…the picture is not entirely clear.

One reason it is difficult to use DNA evidence to draw definite conclusions about Book of Mormon peoples is that nothing is known about the DNA that Lehi, Sariah, Ishmael, and others brought to the Americas.

It is possible that each member of the emigrating parties described in the Book of Mormon had DNA typical of the Near East, but it is likewise possible that some of them carried DNA more typical of other regions.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, clear information of that kind is unavailable.

…it is quite possible that their DNA markers did not survive the intervening centuries.

…the evidence is simply inconclusive. Nothing is known about the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples.

As Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles observed, “It is our position that secular evidence can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.”

Retreat into the unknown

What a lot of mealy-mouthed vacillation. Is this the same group that boldly proclaims that a god restored the everlasting gospel, and that we know for a surety of its truthfulness? But now, when there are questions about its foundational text, they sound like Hans Moleman. When you have the facts on your side, you state the facts. If someone’s trying to obscure things and retreat into uncertainty, you can bet they don’t have the facts on their side.

The phrase “Nothing is known about…” is repeated four times. Gee, it’s too bad they don’t have a… prophet or something to help them with that. It’s this kind of thing that made me realise that listening to a prophet is a really weird and unreliable method of getting information.

Possibilism

There’s also a heavy emphasis on the idea that “you can’t prove or disprove” the Book of Mormon story, with the implication that the probability of it being true or not is about 50-50. It’s not 50-50. The bulk of the probability that the Mormon story is true is vanishingly small, and shrinking. Yet some people will hold onto that tiny sliver of hope, as long as they think it’s still ‘possible’.

I call this possibilistic reasoning, by which I mean ‘a tendency to look only at the possible, holding onto one’s preconceptions until they’re conclusively disproven, one hundred and one percent’. This is how true believing Mormons hold onto their belief in the Church. God, Jesus, and the ghost of Joseph Smith could appear and tell them it was all a fake, and they’d write it off as the devil’s deception. They’ll ignore the bulk of probability, and hold onto the sliver. It’s the same way some of them reject evolution and climate change. The possibility that it’s wrong (and there’s always a possibility) is enough for them to reject it and keep going with whatever they like.

By contrast, probabilistic reasoning looks at the bulk of probability. How true is a thing likely to be, given the evidence we have? By this reasoning, evolution and climate change are extremely likely — not 100%, but close. And the Book of Mormon, with no evidence on its side, but a lot of strikes against it, is likely false.

When discussing this with my friend Mark Ellison, he remarked, “I think possibilistic reasoning is responsible for a great deal of intellectual evil,” and I’d have to agree.

So this DNA statement from the First Quorum of the Anonymous may be somewhat comforting to possibilistic reasoners who are trying to sustain their faith in the irrational, but it’s falling flat with people who are concerned with basing their views on the best evidence.

New Witnesses this time

29 January 2014 / Daniel Midgley / 1 Comment

And really, what terrible thing did the people in Noah’s time (allegedly) do? Make fun of some 500-year-old duffer? Worth the death penalty for sure.

– – – – – – – – –

Hello, reddit atheists! There are more cartoons here.

Extra Talk the Talk banter

9 January 2014 / Daniel Midgley / 4 Comments

I always upload Talk the Talk episodes on Tuesday morning, but today I decided to have a chat with the smooth-voiced James Hall of RTRfm. He had a question about hyphens. So here’s the clip.

Your browser does not support this audio

Lost him at the end.

7 January 2014 / Daniel Midgley / 9 Comments

If you liked this cartoon, there are stacks of others.

Best music of 2013

5 January 2014 / Daniel Midgley / Comments Off

Yes, it’s a little late, but this year’s rundown is still fresh. And so much good music this year. Here are my picks.

Best Electronic Album
Moderat – II

This is the album I listened to most this year. Moderat is a Berlin-based trio consisting of Modeselektor and Apparat, and they run this album confidently. On “Versions”, they bring the mood down so steadily that you may not notice it until the drum fill brings it back up. “Bad Kingdom” deserves all the attention it’s gotten, but also check out “Let In the Light”.

Honorable Mench:
Jon Hopkins — Immunity

If you listen to some of his early work, you may be surprised to find it a little on the new age side of ambient. Not anymore. He’s found his edge, and lost none of his songwriting talent. Immunity is jagged and beautiful, and Hopkins can work the Kaoss pads like a maniac. Very enjoyable live show, too. Here he is at the Boiler Room.

Best Unguilty Pleasure
Lorde — Pure Heroine

I was lucky to come into this album knowing nothing about it, beyond the barest mention of its 16-year-old New Zealand protagonist. I had no idea of its origin, its intended audience; in short, where the album was situated socially. Thank goodness; it freed me up to listen to the music. And musically, I’m still amazed by it. It’s cool, electronic, and minimal. It glitters, but it’s a shimmering of stars, not makeup on eyelids. What’s most amazing about it, though, is how easy she makes it look. Ten unhurried, effortless songs. Check out that shadowy choral part on ‘White Teeth Teens’ or the misty opening to ‘Buzzcut Season’.

Now, of course, I’ve heard ‘Royals’ a hundred times like everyone else (and in fact I was surprised to hear ‘Team’ at the grocery store). I suppose it’s too pop. So what. I don’t care who this album’s for, or if Lorde is supposed to be Ke$ha without the alcohol, or Miley by way of Fiona Apple, or whatever. Most of the music aimed at me isn’t as good as this. I’m an unironic Lorde enjoyer, and I can’t wait to hear what she does next.

Best Psychedelia
Unknown Mortal Orchestra — II

This is kind of psychedelic-sounding but with a light touch. Combine light falsetto vocals with psychedelic guitar and a drummer who loves his fills and breaks, and you’ve got it. Can’t believe how catchy this is. See if you don’t agree.

Song of the Year
Tycho – “Awake”

This should finally put those Boards of Canada comparisons to rest. Not that it’s a bad comparison, or that it wasn’t deserved, but Tycho has come a long way since following in the spangly decayed template that BoC laid out years ago. This time, the guitar is doing the rhythmic driving, with Tycho’s signature analog touches coming in to add flavour. Such smooth. Wow. Can’t wait for the album, due out on 18 March 2014.

Honourable Mench:
Bibio – “À tout à l’heure”

I’ve always been off and on with Bibio, but Silver Wilkinson is where he finally hits the mark for me. And this break-out track has earned its place all over the indie airwaves.

Best Album from Last Year That I Missed
Deerhoof — Breakup Song

Deerhoof has always packed 20 ideas into a song, and this means that the album takes a little longer to get into, for each songs to let its character be felt. For this album, it’s worth it. It’s still a high-energy noise pop album, but Deerhoof sounds more polished and focused than on previous albums. Check out that nod to Perez Prado on ‘The Trouble With Candyhands”.

And if you’re curious, here’s an interview I did last year with drummer Greg Saunier.

Album of the Year
The Paper Kites — States

It was worth the wait. I was really to call this talented Melbourne five-piece the second coming of the Lilac Time, but there’s a lot more to this band’s sound than their previous EPs would lead one to believe. They’ve added touches of rock here amongst the folk — a somewhat controversial choice that works — and lovely swirling orchestral arrangements besides.

The word that fits this album is ‘beautiful’. It’s actually so beautiful that I don’t like to listen to it too much. At times, it demands a careful listening. You don’t so much listen to it as you are In Its Presence. I think they’ve really found their sound, and they deserve all your listens.

Gospel Doctrine for the Godless

5 January 2014 / Daniel Midgley / Comments Off

I’m very pleased to announce a new blog project: Gospel Doctrine for the Godless.

You see, for many years in the LDS Church, I was the Gospel Doctrine teacher. That’s the meeting where you discuss the same four books of scripture over and over and over. (Can’t take the repetition? How do you think you’re going to handle eternity?)

Anyway, I felt bad about having misled people for so long in Gospel Doctrine — even though my lessons were quite good, really — that I decided to revisit the material and do it right. So this is a snarky and skeptical ex-Mormon take on Sunday School. There will be videos, memes, and atheist resources to take Mormon doctrine down a few pegs. Also, I’ll reveal a few of the embarrassing things I used to say in class. (What was I thinking?)

The project begins as Latter-day Saints start studying the Old Testament, and we’ll cycle through the Standard Works, one volume per year, just as they do in church. There’ll be a new lesson just about every week, and the first lesson is up already. If you’re highly allergic to the kind of crapola they used to shovel out in church, this may trigger flashbacks. But maybe you’ll find it therapeutic. Either way, I hope you’ll join in, and I promise I won’t ask you to give the opening prayer.

godlessdoctrine.blogspot.com

Oh, and don’t worry — it’ll be business as usual for Good Reason.

Telling women to what?

28 December 2013 / Daniel Midgley / 3 Comments

Over the years, I’ve heard lots of people — especially young women who should know better — disparage feminism, saying it’s irrelevant to their concerns. “Haven’t we already achieved gender equality?” Men even more so: “I’m certainly unaware of this inequality of which you speak.”

But I never knew I was in that very same camp until I saw a project: Stop Telling Women to Smile. How strange, I thought. Is this even a thing?

I asked my partner: Do men on the street tell you to smile? Yes, every once in a while, she said. Something like “Oh, come on, sweetie, give us a smile!” Or disguised as a compliment: “Shame to have a frown on that pretty face!” Still no smile? Then abuse: “Don’t be stuck up!” Ugh.

I asked more female friends. There were weary confirmations: yes, it was a thing. I was astounded. This is going to sound naïve to women who put up with this, but I’d never seen it. I certainly don’t go around trying to control the faces of women around me. I’ve never even heard other guys do it in my presence. My partner says they wouldn’t say it to her when I’m around.

It was an aspect of sexism that was totally invisible to me. And that’s leaving out wolf whistles and dirty talk.

So when I hear guys say (and I do) “There’s no need for feminism.” or “Systemic inequality is largely a thing of the past.” or “Why, I certainly never see sexism in my daily life!” then I understand. I never saw it either. But that was a function of my insularity and cluelessness. Go ahead and ask women you know if they have to put up with that crap. You may be surprised by their answers.

On the Race and the Priesthood statement

15 December 2013 / Daniel Midgley / 2 Comments

The Mormon Church, in an effort to address its troublesome issues, has released a statement on Race and the Priesthood on their website (link here, snarky summary here), which is apparently how revelation happens these days.

Isn’t it interesting that prophets used to write on stone, but now they write on webpages? Perhaps that’s because webpages are easier to edit later.

Addressing the ouchy bits of Church history is a really terrible idea. As I’ve said before, the Church can’t get ahead of its issues because it’s issues all the way down. They can’t explain away the troublesome bits without first acknowledging the troublesome bits, and this is unlikely to lead to a result the Church likes. Here’s why: pretend you’re the Church, and you’re haemorrhaging members. What do you do?
a) Try and chase the questioning members who are leaving.
b) Try and consolidate the faithful.

With this statement, they’ve chosen b), but this will have two effects. It will satisfy the easily satisfied (who will stay in the Church no matter what it does), and it will spook some of the others. And, while this may prove wrong, I’ve read one true believer who says that Mormons are freaking out, inundating the Church Office Building with questions and complaints.

It’s a bad move on the part of the Church, and I’m sure they wouldn’t do it if they didn’t feel like they had no other option. Otherwise, they’d do what they’ve always done: maintain official silence, and allow the membership to invent its own opinions, guided by correlated church materials. The idea that the old strategy is no longer working gives me a warm feeling inside, which of course means it’s true.

So what’s in this statement? Here are the highlights, and for every highlight, there’s a problem.

First, the LDS Church utterly repudiates racism in all its forms.
Good for them. Unfortunately, to repudiate racism, they’re going to have to repudiate the Book of Mormon, which has as a central plot point the idea that dark skin can sometimes be a punishment for sin.

The Book of Abraham has its own problems.

Under the bus with Brother Brigham
The statement stops short of saying the priesthood ban was wrong (which is crucial), but it certainly traces it to Brigham Young. But it’s hard for the Church to take a ‘bad Brigham / good Joseph’ strategy. While Joseph Smith did give the priesthood to a black man once, he also thought that slavery was just dandy; check Steve Benson’s comments at the tail of this story. And the statement ignores the fact that other church leaders on down the line said the same thing for a hundred years.

It explicitly says the less-valiant theory is wrong
This is the crazy folk-doctrine idea that black people were less valiant in the pre-mortal life, so they were born with dark skin and no priesthood in this life. Can you believe it? Where do people get this stuff? Oh yeah, from the First Presidency.

Okay, so what are some of the implications of this new church statement?

This statement obliterates the Church’s claim that the prophet can never lead the Church astray.
They do teach wrong things, which then have to be corrected. Which means that the LDS Church looks exactly as it would look if it were just led by people.

Using a prophet as a guide is a bad idea.
They’re supposed to get it right, but ‘prophets, seers, and revelators’ got this issue dead wrong (by the Church’s own admission) for more than a century. So what are they getting wrong now, that will need to be repudiated in 50 years? (Hint: starts with LGBT.)

Isn’t it a bit of a coincidence that God, a transcendant being who exists outside of space and time, holds prejudices that reflect in precise detail the prejudices that are general among the human population? Until he gets updated — to match the exact prejudices of his modern human followers? Isn’t it a bit of a giveaway that Mormon prophets show no better moral judgments than ordinary non-prophets, but do significantly worse? You’d think there would be some kind of consequences for having a god at the head of your church, but if you talk to Very Sophisticated Mormon Apologists, then there are no consequences really; the prophets are imperfect men in a socio-historical context blah blah blah. Well, then what are they good for? And why should I listen to them? I can get loads of ideas from imperfect people in a socio-historical context — there’s no shortage of them, and some of them have quite good ideas. I don’t really need or want to listen to racists. Or sexists or homophobes, for that matter.

This statement is an indicator as to the bind the LDS Church is in.
Leaving the issue alone allows confusion and discontent to percolate through the membership. Addressing it directly exposes a mass of inconsistencies. Either way, it’s a lose-lose for the church.

Apparently this is going to be a series. I can hardly wait for the next ones!

Good Reason

It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to stay wrong.