THE KINGSTONS

So, I am part of a new music group called "The Kingstons", which is one part Mumford and Sons, one part Johnny Cash, and one part Quintin Tarentino movie sound track. I wouldn't call it country (mostly because country music makes my ears bleed), but maybe folk or cowboy rock. Maybe "Western"? Think "The Lone Ranger" with cajones and grit. Needless to say, my trumpet really stands out (hopefully in a good way). I also play some saloon style piano.

/FLEX

What does it say about a person when on the first day of a new job they get a promotion?

In related news: maybe I won't have to sell all of my stuff in order to eat, after all....

i-MIDI (part 2)

A while back I posted some songs which I had made on my ipad with Garage Band and a midi controller. This is part 2.

Groove 3

Groove 5

  

Groove 6

Latin 1

Latin 2

Latin 3

Blues Rock 1

 Techno Blues

Slow Jam 3

 Slow Jam 4

  Slow Jam 5

 Slow Jam 6

This last one has some sentimental value to me. It is a piano accompaniment to the song "Dance with my Father" by Luther Van Dross. A student of mine requested that I write this for her graduation, but I was layed off a week before her ceremony...

CIRCLE SQUARED

In an effort to avoid ostracising my religious friends and family, I am going to start putting my religious/atheist posts on a new blog. Since I am not trying to attack any one's personal beliefs, this will allow those who are interested in my views on this subject to find them all together, and those who aren't interested to avoid them. First, I will add some older posts from this blog concerning religion and my leaving the Mormon church (with the original dates, of course). Then, who knows...

SACRELICOUS

Today I’m going to address two common religious arguments for the existence of a supernatural deity: the “God of the Gaps” argument, and the argument of “Objective Morality.”

First, Objective Morality. The argument usually goes something like this: In order for morals to be derived objectively, there has to be some kind of authority stating that something is either moral or immoral. One action cannot be more moral than another based solely on one’s opinion that something is good or bad. Therefore, based on the subjective nature of atheistic morality, the “Golden Rule” is no more moral than Hitler’s genocide because it is simply a matter of opinion.

Typically, atheists feel cornered by this argument, at least initially. They often try to argue that no one follows the command “Thou shalt not kill”** simply because the bible says so. Or they may ask the theist if they would start raping and killing if they found out that there was no god (some theists actually say they would). Or they might say that it is better to do good for goodness’ sake, rather than for threats of hell. Or they say that everyone who claims to get morals from god objectively has a different opinion on various moral questions, thus implying that if it is an objective process, it should, at the very least, be consistent. Some even try to show how morals have changed over the years and that many people find things, like, say slavery, to be abhorrent, even though people used to be fine with it (not to mention, it is sanctioned in the bible, as many Christians pointed out prior to the abolition of slavery). I think that, although these arguments do a fair job of showing the subjective nature of morality, they are not very convincing to the theist who thinks they get their morals from god.

So, I propose a new argument. Logically, one cannot base an objective statement on a subjective experience. Experiencing god through a spiritual experience (i.e., a burning in the bosom, seeing a vision, or hearing a voice) is a subjective experience. Therefore, you cannot say that the morals you get from a god are objective without first demonstrating objectively how you know god exists and is the source of your morality. Once you can demonstrate the objective existance of god, then you can claim an objective source for morals, but not before. Because of this, I find the argument for objective morality to be null.

The “God of the Gaps” argument goes like this: if science does not have a good explanation of an event or process, then god must be responsible for it. In other words, you can freely stick god in to any gaps in our scientific understanding. This is very common among young earth creationists (who actually take it one step further and deny evidence or explanations so they can cling to their god explanations), and most level-headed people see this as a bad argument right away. But many people, including myself a few years ago, fall in to this line of thinking without realizing the fallacy (see what I did there?).

The logical fallacy here is called an “argument from ignorance.” This basically means that just because you don’t know how something works or how something came to be, you can’t just insert a belief as an explanation (“if not X: then Y” is not a supported argument, it is merely an assertion). Going back to the creationists, even if we found out that evolution was completely wrong, creationists would still need to provide support and evidence to say that creationism is true.

So what happens when we do find scientific reasons for things where people have inserted god? This is the problem with the “god of the gaps” argument. In this scenario, God is “ever receding” in to gaps of scientific ignorance, until one day, he can’t hide any longer and must be discarded. This is why Galileo was exiled by the catholic church for using physics to show that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around (as indicated by the bible, and thus the pope's objection). If this is your basis for belief in god, prepare for this eventuality.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that someone did show that morals have to be objective, and that we really don’t and never will understand the natural explanation of some scientific thing, and thus created a supposed “need” for a god to exist. This would still not prove the existence of god anymore than I can prove that teleportation exists because I need it for my morning commute. Creating a hypothetical or philosophical need for something does not prove that that thing exists.

**With regards to the “Thou shalt not kill” commandment (which, by the way, is a mistranslation and should be read “Thou shalt not murder your fellow Jews”), there is actually a rather convincing secular or evolutionary reason, as well as a psychological reason, to not kill one another. The evolutionary reason is pretty straightforward. Populations which are predisposed to not killing each other, will propagate better and be more successful. The psychological reason ties in to this. With the obvious exception of sociopaths (those who feel no empathy towards other people), most people feel positively terrible when they kill someone—even for legitimate reasons, like self-defense or in a battle field. It is so impactful, in fact, that there are reports of physical manifestations of these feelings of guilt, such as panic attacks, vomiting, crying, and even PTSD (which, I suppose doesn’t really count as “physical”, but you get the point).

DOWNSIZING

nothing says "thanks" like a severance package.

it's been a rough day.

SKIP A BEATING

i have tried really hard not to let this blog become a political forum (not that anyone comments anymore... =P). and i really dont want to just bash other people's beliefs here, however silly or unjustified i may find them. but honestly, i dont have any other outlet for this kind of discussion--aside from the occasional "wait, you're not mormon!?!" conversation. so some times it just comes out. but other times it needs to be said: the mormon church is bad for gays.

about two months ago a simple phone call with a mormon family member turned into a three hour theological debate, all because i mentioned that i had spent some time with some gay friends. in response, they mentioned that spending time with people who do bad things encourages us to engage in similar behaviors (the standard religious attitude to spending time with people who swear, eat babies or listen to evil jazz music). i have a big problem with this kind of thinking and i dont believe relationships can be reduced to the likes of a seminary video on saying "no" to parties with any thing more than mild fun ("it's a christian music-bonfire"). but this isnt really the point. it is important to see how good, moral, and nice people--all of which describe this person--can still be fundamentally wrong about things like whether homosexuality occurs naturally or is a choice (and is, therefore, "contagious") and then vote based on this presupposition.

so why is this relevant? people who think like this affect other people negatively despite their best intentions. this is doubly so when legislation (and church funds) are involved. but when it is within the church itself, it gets very personal very quickly and can do the most damage.

today i read an interview between an active, openly gay mormon (also known as a "moho" or "oxi-Mormon"), and a recently excommunicated gay mormon. it is important to note that, although now excommunicated and ostracised, the interviewee still believes in church doctrine, the book of mormon and joseph smith. as shown in the interview, in a very real and personal way, the church's stance on homosexuality IS harmful, and in my opinion perpetuates ignorance and prejudice.

i-MIDI

garage band on the ipad is pretty awesome in and of itself (you can play virtual instruments on the touch pad) and it is the primary reason i got an ipad last fall. but as cool as it is to slide your finger across the screen and hear the gentle strum of an acoustic guitar, it is somewhat limited and takes a bit of "getting used to." so i recently connected my ipad to my electric piano and can now use my piano as a midi controller in garage band. this means more versatility and ease of playing. naturally, since then (last friday) i have spent the majority of my free time writing music and figuring out the ins and outs of my new set up. with the exception of the drums, all the instruments used below were written and played on the piano.

first i tried an old jazz ballad called "tenderly" featuring the steel guitar.




then i thought i would try something a little more complicated with another jazz standard, "autumn leaves." i even added a style change at the end.




next i thought i would try something original, and a little more groovy.




this one is similar to the last one (you may notice they are the same length--that's the magic of a metronome) but i added some different kinds of instruments, like strings.



next i thought i would try my hand at "house" music. i had some fun with this one. the original length was about 9 minutes which was a bit long so chopped it down to a manageable 5 and half minutes. this one is called "welcome house."




lastly, i wanted to try something more laid back and in 6/8. so i named this one "six ate."




side note: my band is having its final show (yes, i said final) on april 20 at the madison in provo. i expect 1 million people there, so you shouldn't miss it.

FLYING IN THE FACE OF

"It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming." --Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project, Evangelical Christian.

few things really get my goat like willful ignorance. it is bad enough to believe something for no good reason, but it is infinitely worse when it is thrown in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. take for example the latest political sacred cow: ron paul.




people often say that evolution is a political non-issue. but a person's stance on evolution indicates some very important things on how they view science and education. ron paul not only rejects one of the most important and well-supported biological theories but doesn't understand the difference between scientific theory and a colloquial catch phrase: "just a theory" (i've been saying this a lot lately). how can he be expected to take scientific advice from experts on anything if he already rejects the view of 99% of biologists on the most important question in biology? how can he be an advocate for education if he doesn't understand the scientific method and basic terminology?

comparing ron paul to other candidates on this issue is not like the old south park episode of comparing a douche with a turd. it is comparing turds of varying consistencies. ron paul may very well be the best candidate for the presidency, but his ignorance on basic science does not bode well for a commander in chief.

edit: i just found out ron paul was a practicing physician in the military for a number of years, which makes his comments on evolution all the more disheartening.

ok, one more video just for fun:



ok, i lied. one more about human evolution.

LIES, DAMNED LIES, AND STATISTICS (take 2)

"Science will beat pseudo-science every time." --Christopher Hitchens

Ignorance is (not necessarily) bliss. And spreading misinformation and drawing false conclusions on poorly conducted studies is shameful. Even if you are attacking something that seems intrinsically bad--like soda (everyone likes a scapegoat). I was going to post the following remark on a shared link on facebook, but I didn't want to stir the pot with this particular person (she's an english major). Instead I will post it here so I can get it off my unscathed chest:

This is nothing more than scare tactics to get people to click on their site. The last line says it all. "However, people that drink diet soda tend to have more unhealthy lifestyles, and so the study can't specifically be linked to diet soda as a cause." In other words, correlation means nothing by itself (statistics 101). It can only support other evidence. I have seen similar "studies" attacking meat and high fructose corn syrup using the same tactics. All of these things may very well be bad for you, but these sorts of studies only hurt their credibility by misrepresenting the data. As Mark Twain said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

HELL IN A HANDBASKET MADE FOR TWO

this is some what of a continuation of my story of leaving the mormon church.

there has been a lot of talk in the media about mormonism lately. partly because of various politicians and their increasingly public views on the matter. but also because of sites like this which have been spreading around social media like an empty collection plate--or tithing envelope! (by the way, to my knowledge, this site is run by an active member of the mormon church). one of the more interesting things on this site is a new survey which asked people why they left the mormon church (see left).

now, before i get in to my own reasons, i would like to point out that when i was growing up church leaders (and family members) said time and time again that the main reasons why someone would leave the church is because they were offended by someone or because they couldn't give up their favorite "sin." since these reasons are at the very bottom of the list, they are not only not my reasons (every time you use a double negative, god kills a kitten...), but they apparently aren't anyone else's reasons either. this misconception seems to be one of the reasons this survey and site were undertaken.

for me, several of these could describe why i left. i guess, if i were to choose a primary reason i would go with "re-evaluating what it means to know," with "losing faith in god" as a close second. i don't get hung up quite so much on opposing views of joseph smith or the book of mormon or church history, as these things are largely a matter of opinion and both sides seem to have their share of covering up and spin. to those who accuse the mormon church of being a cult i would say: the beginnings of any religion will appear cult-ish--especially to outsiders. so, really, its a non-argument.

i do take issue with a few things in the book of mormon, like anachronisms (things being out of place, i.e. horses in america, steel, compasses, conflicting geography, etc.); as well as the claim that the book of mormon was originally said to be a record of the native americans, and the fact that this claim has been so thoroughly debunked through genetic research that it was (quietly) removed from the introduction of the book of mormon just a few years ago (i still have my 1981 edition to verify the change). but these things are not necessarily nails in the coffin as outlined in this video (again, made by an active mormon):




getting back to my reasons for leaving the church, i said that i "re-evaluated what it means to know." in other words, "why is faith a virtue?" the more i have thought about this, the less convinced i am that gut feelings are a reliable source of knowledge. they may have a place when all other options are exhausted (similar to the "god of the gaps" argument, or taking a multiple choice test), but even then it is no better than an educated guess (and that's being more generous than some would put it).

and then to say that your faith gives you "knowledge" (which you can hear in any "fast and testimony" meeting of the church) is just mind-boggling to me. faith is not knowledge. it is the opposite of knowledge. it is an assertion of beliefs that you have no evidence for. if you had evidence then you wouldn't call it faith. i'm sorry, but faith seems to be little more than socially acceptable credulity.

there is a path to knowledge which includes logic, reason and evidence. if you don't have those things then you can not assert that something is true (even with those things, it is still up for debate--this is called peer-reviewed science). if you don't have those things then all you can do is say you don't know; and if you say you don't know if there is a god, then guess what--YOU'RE AN ATHEIST by definition.

one of my new favorite things to do is watch a public access show called "the atheist experience" based out of austin, texas (in the heart of bible country, i might add). it is a great show for believers and non-believers alike, where a panel discusses religion and answers callers' questions from an atheistic perspective. this is probably the best thing to come from texas since the oil tycoon (probably). here is a clip where they discuss some of the things i mentioned concerning knowledge versus belief. the ending is especially telling... ;P



OBLIGATORY DISCLAIMER: i do not hold any ill-will toward any one who chooses to stay in the mormon church. if faith is enough for you, then more power to you. for me, it is not. as some would say, "i don't hate you--i just think you're wrong."