I am an Unaffiliatist (among other things) – that is, I am unaffiliated with any religion. I’m also a statistic. According to the results of a recent Pew survey that explores how Americans change religions, “The group that has grown the most in recent years due to religious change is the unaffiliated population.” 16% of the U.S. population identify with having no religion while only 7% were raised that way.

They list a few reasons these apostates gave up religion. For instance, about 40% no longer believed in God or the teachings of any religion. More interestingly many left their religion because they felt it was too rule-based or because the leaders were more concerned with money or power than spirituality. It seems that the movement to inject evangelical Christianity into U.S. politics has backfired. They failed to learn from history that separation of church and state is beneficial for both institutions.

One reason for leaving one’s religion that was not very prominent in the survey was that science disproves religion. This means that science-based arguments against religion are not a major factor in creating apostates. The self-destructive antics of the religions themselves are much more effective. The anti-religion segment of non-believers that list science as a reason get quite a lot of attention but actually make up a small percentage of the unaffiliated population. I compare this to the way fundamentalist Christians get more coverage than mainstream ones.

The above comic is created and licensed by xkcd.com.

Though news media is in the business of selling ad spots and not in the business reporting honestly, it is dishonest in part due to the rampant innumeracy in America.

The music festival component of SXSW kicks off this evening and, once again, I am not there. Maybe next year. This festival features a ton of great live music. The shear number of bands is overwhelming (many of which, you can stream and download from the SXSW website). Thankfully, my favorite sources of music, KCRW and RCRDLBL_ pick out some of the best acts for me.

One band, Black Math Horsemen, was recently featured on RCRDLBL_. They get docked a point for starting their band name with the all to common ‘Black’, but instantly make up for it by following that up with “Math”. “Horseman” hints to what kind of music they make. It’s tough to describe, but ‘apocalyptic’ seems to fit. It’s definitely dark (black is a bit of an over-sell), dramatic, and desperate with just a bit of a psychedelic feel. The song structures and drumming are progressive, the bass guitar riffs long and melodic, and the multilayered electric guitars alternate between melodic and rocking but always with an atmospheric feel. Distant, often detached vocals emerge from behind the music instead of being front and center; a feature I definitely appreciate.

The two songs below are well-composed and very well produced. I suspect many people will find them inaccessible. There aren’t any repetitive hooks or danceable rhythms that grab you and make them memorable. Their appeal comes from a sense of mystery and the intellectual challenge their songs create. I like them because they are easy to space out to even (especially!) when played loud. They might not be for everybody, but I certainly enjoy them. I hope you do as well.

As many of you have noticed, updates to this blog have become increasingly less common. There are a number of reasons for that. One reason is that much of my energy and time is sapped by my fitness goal for the year. Another is the increased work load due to a shrinking staff at my place of employment. Yet another is that I discovered Twitter, which sucks up much of my online time. But the main reason is that I’m suffering from debate burnout.

Debating topics is one of my favorite past times. It’s one of the reasons I started the blog in the first place. I think I’ve gotten too much of something I normally enjoy. Consider the post and comment interregnums as time I am taking to rebuild interest. If I don’t get around to responding to your wonderful comments (and I love each and every one of them), I apologize. Please understand that it’s nothing personal, it’s my own flaw.

With that in mind, I’m going to try and post more often about less controversial things. I say ‘try’ because sometimes I just can’t help but offer my opinion on a hot topic even if I’m not up for a debate.

Thank you all for your understanding.

Anecdotal, homeschooling (HS) seems to be on the rise in America. I’m quite surprised at the number of friends, acquaintances, and former classmates who are choosing to homeschool their children. A fairly recent government study confirms my experience. I call the topic a minefield because it seems to be a touchy topic for HS parents. I’m sure that they believe they are doing what is best for their children and making every effort to ensure success. Indeed, I applaud their dedication to their children’s education. This post is not to question their good intentions, but to express what I consider problematic with HS.

First, though I want to offer a disclaimer and list some things I consider home schooling does well. I have no children of my own. If and when I have a kid of schooling age, I don’t know what choices I’ll make. Secondly, I am not an educator nor am I an expert in education. My experience with being an educator is limited to teaching college mathematics for four years. Thus I have very little first-hand knowledge of these topics.

One thing that HS offers that is positive is individualized attention/curriculum. The entire educational experience can be tailor suited for a student’s learning style, speed, and abilities. Of course such an environment enhances a student’s ability to learn. It does nothing to for the parents’ ability to teach, but more on that later.

This post only covers two reasons why I dislike homeschooling. For my other reasons, I’m hoping to do some more research and to get some input from those who are closer to the educational system.

Okay, into the minefield I march!

Read the rest of this entry »

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 »