This video is a great primer on how easy it is to misattribute probability to events in hindsight. Specifically, it demonstrates why ascribing supernatural causes to rare events is fallacious. This is the mistake made by evolution deniers who believe that the appearance of a conscious being is too unlikely to happen naturally.

Thanks to Mentally Jumbled and skepnet (via astroengine) for making this video known to me.

Author Scott Roche has created a video promo for his book Archangel. In the second part of his story, I voice one of the characters and provide audio production assistance. Check it out.

Theologically speaking, I self-identify as a ‘deist-agnostic’, which really functions no differently than modern atheism. I live my life as if there is no God. So why even use the ‘deist’ label, why not just use ‘atheist’ or even ‘agnostic’? Sometimes I do. It depends on the situation, the audience, and the level of detail I feel like going into at the time. It’s impractical to list all situations where a theological label would come up, but I’ll give you a few. I’ll use ‘deist’ is social situations in which I know ‘atheist’ will cause unwanted trouble (I live and work in the Bible Belt of the United States). I use ‘atheist’ when discussing particular religions since I don’t believe in the god(s) of that religion. Also, I use the more precise ‘deist-agnostic’ when discussing theology and/or am interested in starting such a discussion.

My deist identity came up when discussing an interesting post about deism and skepticism with Thor’Ungal. I ended up explain the basis of my deism in light of my skepticism. The answer is the cosmological argument (CA):

1. A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
2. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation[1] for its existence.
3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.

Read the rest of this entry »

It’s a new year and blogs across the net have done “2008 in review” and “looking ahead to 2009″ posts. I’ll do a little of both.

Music:

2008 was a great year for music. My first discovery was Yeasayer and my last was Bell Hollow. Both had CDs I immediately purchased. The best musical find wasn’t a band or a new CD though, but something much more valuable: a source of new music, RCRD_LBL.

The last year also involved a rediscovery of my interest in music creation. In addition to recording an old favorite and three new shorts, I wrote and recorded my first new full-length song in years. Unfortunately, I have done very little music recording since. This is partially because I finally got the equipment to record drums. I played and recorded myself only to discover that I’m hopelessly out of practice and need lessons. I’ve been taking lessons for several months just to relearn what I’ve lost. I’m also picking up some new skills along the way.

In 2009, I plan on continuing the lessons to the point where I can play and record the drums competently. Then I can continue my collaboration with Chopdeli. I also plan on continuing my electronica composing. I have a song in the works tentatively called Rust Belt. I’ll also post about what I think is the best of RCRD_LBL and hope to review CDs more often.

Religion:
Read the rest of this entry »