The Necessary Virtue of Suspending Judgement

Image

In the “Information Age” we live in, we are confronted daily with issues, ideas, and news stories faster than our ability to absorb them can keep up. In days gone by (and I mean like two decades ago) the necessity for us to confront and formulate multiple opinions on so many things daily or even hourly didn’t exist. There may have been a “water cooler” discussion over some worthy topic at work, an important newspaper article to think about, or a story on the evening news to digest, but typically only a few a day.

Now, even when checking your home feed on Facebook, you are inundated with a host of earth-shattering stories and ideological challenges. Life on social networking isn’t all just cat pictures and Farmville anymore. Not only that, but the expectation of a response is as instant as the posting of the issue. When I scroll down my own feed at the moment, I see deadly protests in Venezuela, an article about the foolishness of snake handling churches, an article about people being buried alive, a treatise on the potential moral evils of the Judeo/Christian God, and varied responses to the recent “coming out” of Michael Sam and Ellen Page. That doesn’t even cover half of the pithy issues and stories that have been shared in the last day.

I, of course, share stories and issues as well. We all desire to inform and/or challenge our peers via our social networks about things that are important to us. Such interaction is a big part of what social networking is all about. Ironically, you will probably form an opinion of this blog entry, which addresses having to formulate opinions on articles, social network posts, stories, and blogs. That said, I want to encourage us all about this current reality in society; a reality where issues and ideas are constantly barraging us.

Here are some of the positives that result from this:

1. We are being tacitly encouraged to become faster thinkers and rely more on reason, evidence, and logic to ascertain good information and deflect the bad. If we cannot adapt to this social mode, we will be easily fooled and be reactionary to unsubstantiated claims. I chuckle when an “Onion” satire article inflames the sensibilities of a person who isn’t privy to such parody and “Poe” stories. I see this trend as a type of intellectual, “Natural Selection,” revealing the “fittest” for this new Internet driven world.

2. The Internet allows for us to be exposed to positive ideas, technologies, and relevant issues that we wouldn’t otherwise know about.

3. It is very hard for a person to be kept ignorant by those around them who would desire to limit their information access.

Here are some of the potential negatives:

1. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE can post anything they want and “trolls” are aplenty. Memes, photoshop, and slick looking, cheap or free websites can give the appearance of validity to an idea and the ability for people to share nonsense. Some of these are even dangerous. For example, when a person who needs effective medical treatment abandons such for the “essential oils” or “homeopathic remedies” they see in a meme or foolish article, they can actually die.

2. We can spend otherwise enjoyable time researching and formulating opinions on all the things we are exposed to. Ultimately though, it is on us to prioritize our time and shape our own online experience. If our exposure is stressing us out, we should curb internet time and/or rethink our “likes” and “friends list.” (I use the pronouns “I,” “us,” and “we” heavily as I consider these pros and cons because as we engage in online interaction, we are all in this new social world together)

All that brings me to an important consideration… Who says we need to have an instant opinion on everything? Who says we have to know everything? I think there is nothing wrong and everything right with asserting, “I’m just not sure. I’ll have to think about it and get back to you later.” Humbly saying, “I don’t know,” is also a glory in today’s world. In this modern Age of Ideas, intellectual humility and intellectual honesty is sometimes hard to come by. Of course, there are many things that you may have already considered and developed a position on. Share those positions straightaway of course, yet be willing to revise them if new data necessitates it.

Give yourself permission to take appropriate time to formulate an opinion or make a reasonable judgement regarding issues and ideas you think are worth considering. If you don’t have enough information at present, suspend judgement until you do. Then, you can do your due diligence to acquire sufficient data and/or perform needed philosophical consideration at an effective pace or at your leisure. You can also require those making certain assertions to provide their own evidence. It is not your responsibility to prove their ill-supported case for them or provide proof against a claim made sans evidence and reason. To quote Christopher Hitchens,

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

In temporarily suspending judgement, you’ll also be teaching those around you that you require time to consider issues of importance and lean on rationality over emotional, knee-jerk reactions. Be an example of effective intellectual methodology among your peers. Fostering a less emotionally reactionary society wouldn’t be a bad thing. Such an intellectual climate is even more desirable as society becomes increasingly dependent (if that is possible) on Internet social networking.

So, what are your thoughts? (Take all the time you need) 🙂

*The meme at the top of this blog is my creation, but feel free to use it as you wish.

On the Now Infamous Buzzfeed, “22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution”

Image

It has been amazing to see the speed at which the Buzzfeed article, “22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution,” has blown up on social media. Not only that, but the passionate response from people on both sides of the theological and scientific argument has been huge.

Click the link to see the article:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio

Buzzfeed journalist, Matt Stopera, was live at the Nye vs. Ham debate last Tuesday. As I was making my way around the Creation Museum, taking pictures and writing notes before the debate, I saw Mr. Stopera actively working the crowd to get a balanced take and opinions from “both sides.” I did an on-camera interview for Jonathan Ryan from the, “Geek Goes Rogue,” blog on Patheos, but did not get to speak with Matt Stopera from Buzzfeed. I was impressed by his demeanor with the museum patrons and his efforts to get balanced coverage. Though the secular and non-young earth creationist contingent was in the minority at the event, it appeared easier for Matt to get “messages” from their side. As the appointed debate time drew nigh, he was still working hard to get enough message pictures from the creationist side to make the pictures even. 

Due to some things I’ve seen on social media stating that Buzzfeed was just trying to make people look stupid on the creationist side or that Matt Stopera was “leading” people in some way, I can say as a very close bystander, that is not correct. Matt would give the people who wanted to participate a marker and paper, then allow them ample time to reflect on something to write. He didn’t prompt them to write any particular thing. He told them to write anything they wanted. Also, he must have posted nearly, if not all the pictures he took, not just ones that made one side look better and the other worse. It appeared that he was able to actively interface with people from about 4:00 pm to 6:30 pm. That isn’t a lot of time to get 44 people to participate in such a two-sided coverage piece, but he was able to make it happen. I was impressed.

Click the link to see the contrasting, “22 Messages For Creationists From People Who Believe In Evolution”:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-for-creationists-from-people-who-believe-in-evoluti

I have also seen no shortage of satirical photoshops of the pictures and serious responses posted by others this week, primarily to the creationist’s messages. See two of my favorites below.

“Answers for Creationists,” article by By Phil Plait:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/06/religion_and_science_answering_creationists_questions.html

“The Amazing Atheist Answers 22 Creationists”

Here are a few things I would like to mention based on the varied responses I’ve seen to the first “22 Messages” article online:

1. To my secular, scientific, and atheist counterparts: These are real people and most are probably nice, hard working folks. Just because you disagree with them, that is no cause to go “ad hominem” on them via social media. I’d almost guarantee you NOT ONE of the people in the pictures had any idea how HUGE the response to their messages would be. To the people who have kept their comments on-point, kudos. But, I’ve read quite a few comments on facebook and elsewhere criticizing the looks or build of some of the people in the pictures. I have also read some comments that are just very derogatory with nothing constructive or instructive said to refute the “message.” That is out of line in my opinion. If you despise the young-earth creationist ideology, attack the ideology. None of the people in these pictures have done anything to you or I personally I presume. Don’t attack them personally in a way not directly related to the issue, from a presumably safe vantage point on the Internet. It is a cheap shot and does nothing to further your own argument.

2. To Young Earth Creationists: Don’t assume all the people in the pictures are “angels” just because they believe like you theologically. One individual in the pictures sat next to me during the debate. He or she made an interesting remark about some people who should, “Go back to Africa.” The small group he or she was a part of had quite a few interesting things to say as the debate countdown was rolling. That being said, I don’t put that on creationists in general. Far from it. But, on both sides, this issue needs to be about the issue. Regardless of whether you or I think a person we disagree with is “a jerk” or “arrogant,” that means nothing relative to if they are correct. This is an issue about modern, evidence-based science and the supposed scientific authority of the ancient Bible text. To paraphrase Bill Nye, “Show me the evidence and you’ll change my mind.” If you are shown contradictory evidence, but yet your mind remains resolute in your beliefs, please don’t fool yourself into a self-evaluated position of intellectual honesty.

3. I was staggered by the simplicity and lack of insight in most of the “messages” and questions. I wonder if many of the people have bothered to give google a work out on these subjects to find relevant scientific data from valid sources. Also, many messages show a distinct confirmation bias from people who probably have never searched out the argument of the opposition. Most of the questions raised can be answered very quickly and comprehensively with just a bit of research. I am surprised that some or all of the people in the pictures saw their messages and questions as a knock-out punch to modern science and/or secularism.

4. My last bit of encouragement is as follows: Seek out honest dialogue over debate. Debate can be a wonderful thing and I was very encouraged by the turnout and response to the one this week. But, it only goes so far. Reach out to people if you want to change their minds in a constructive way. If you wonder what people of the opposing view think, ask them directly when you have opportunity. Engage in effective, personal communication whenever possible. Aggressive posturing rarely ever leads to minds being changed or relationships being built. We have the privilege to live in a Nation with true freedom of speech. Use it fully; just mix in a pinch of kindness and empathy as well.

If you have not yet seen the epic debate, click the link below:

-Copyright 2014, Luke Austin Daugherty

First thoughts on the Nye vs. Ham Debate and Creation Museum -Back at the Hotel…

Image

After creeping 15 miles in the level 2 snow emergency, I’m at my hotel and a little tired. But, I want to share a few “knee jerk” reactions from my experience at the “Creation Museum” and the Nye vs Ham debate today before hitting the sack.

Regarding the “Creation Museum”:

I arrived at 2:15 pm so I would have a little time to look around the main exhibit areas before they closed early at 4 pm. I ended up getting a ticket to the “Stargazer’s Planetarium” for the 3:00 pm show, which lasted 23 minutes, so my time in the museum was a bit rushed.

I have heard many good things, even from atheists, about the “presentation” of the museum. I’d agree that the fit and finish of the joint was pretty good. The animatronics were nice. The main animatronic display in the main hall, fitted with a pond, two baby T-Rex dinosaurs playing, a little girl holding a modern, domesticated carrot, and a gray squirrel did seem like a bit of a “mash-up” though. The graphic design of most of the different displays was very good as well, not to mention a stellar dragon-themed gift shop. (I almost broke down and bought a copy of their, “The Homosexual War: A Biblical View,” DVD because I wanted to find out what all the gays were REALLY up to, but I didn’t want to stand in the check-out line)

That said, I was literally AMAZED at the lack of real scientific data for a “museum.” For a good portion of the exhibits, there was quite a lack of scientific or even pseudo-scientific data. I was quite taken back really. I first walked in the main entrance, through “Dragon Hall,” which is a large hall that has several displays drawing a correlation between Bible dragons and apparently real dragons from folklore. Then, as you begin the walk through the main exhibits: “Starting Points, “Biblical Authority,” “Biblical Relevance,” “Culture in Crisis,” and more, (see link directly below for virtual tour of the museum) the place starts to just feel like a big, philosophical/theological argument based on Ham’s chosen Ancient Text. I did not feel like I was actually in a museum of any kind. I don’t think I would have even back when I would have agreed with Ken Ham on the majority of his theology either.

http://creationmuseum.org/whats-here/photo-preview/

Trying to make you scared of “sin,” evil secular agendas, suicide, hell, and more; the first half of the museum walk is a grand appeal to emotion. I would suppose for many who acknowledge Ham’s ideologies, getting whipped up emotionally before having weighty theological ideas implanted (or merely reinforced) into a mind primed by fear, must create a strong level of conviction for those beliefs. At the end of it, there isn’t an option left to disagree with the “Creation Museum’s” literal interpretations of the Bible AND NOT be evil, secular, a follower of “Naturalism Religion,” or in danger of eventual suicide, and/or illicit drug use.

Overall, the people at the Creation Museum did a very good job of making things streamlined at check-in and everyone was very nice and smiling genuinely. Though, I’ve never seen so much armed security at a private museum in America or “K-9 Units” walking through the crowd. Regardless, I support their right to have such security, though I wouldn’t have expected it there. They could put a manned .50 caliber machine gun on a turret in the parking lot for all I care. Just keep the safety on. I wouldn’t want one of my tires shot out if the guard sneezes with his finger on the trigger. (I kid, I kid)

Some of the kindly staff moving through the crowds, keeping an eye out, did seem to be a bit on edge though. When a group of what looked to be “secular religionists” like myself were laughing and looking at a pad of paper, I heard a staff person ask himself, “What’s going on here?,” with some worry and move near them to listen in. The staff must be concerned that the atheists are going to go full-on immoral at any moment, take a page out of the first chapters of Genesis, strip themselves bare, and run around naked…

The Debate:

I’ll keep this short, as I’ll write more later. Also, you can watch the debate for yourself at the link below.

I feel the most important thing to note from both Nye and Ham, came in the Q & A at the end. They were both asked, “What evidence would it take to change your mind.” (paraphrased)

Ham did not allow that ANY evidence whatsoever could changed his mind from the literal interpretation he has of the Bible and his personal revelations from God. He might deviate on some nuances about the details to a degree, but apparently not the basic “truth” of the Genesis account of creation, the Ark/Flood account, etc. He is a resolute and unchangeable no matter the “evidence.”

Nye had a ready list of potential evidence and data, which if they could be presented, would change his mind on important scientific items of note immediately.

All other things aside for now, I’ll assert that Bill Nye came out ahead in the “intellectual honesty” aspect of the debate. More to come!

http://debatelive.org/

The Debate is About to Begin! Nye vs. Ham

Image

 

I had a fun time perusing the “Creation Museum” this afternoon. Now, I’m waiting for the real fun to begin! The, “Debate of the Decade,” will be kicking off in just a few hours. 

Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham is like the Super Bowl for science nerds, theologians, young earth creationists, and non-theists. I’ll be blogging asap after the event is over. Follow my blog for all the updates! 

And, It’s not too late to watch the live stream online! Click the link below: 

http://debatelive.org/

Rolling to Kentucky in my ’94… To the Nye/Ham debate!

Image

I’ve got my “duds” packed and the tires are aired up on my ’94 Buick Roadmaster. I’m ready to go! Tomorrow, come rain or snow, I’ll be heading to the “Creation Museum” to see Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate over the origins of life and perhaps the universe. I’m very excited, as I’ve never attended such a high profile debate in person.

I’ll do my best to get some blogs about the event up asap. Please follow my blog for updates delivered to your via email or through WordPress.

Here is the link where you can watch the debate live, including a countdown timer:

http://debatelive.org/

You can also read my two previous blogs about the upcoming debate. See the links below:

4 Reasons in Defense of Bill Nye Debating Ken Ham

I Got a Golden Ticket! I’m Going to the Nye vs. Ham Debate!

Confessions of a Former Homophobe: Same Love

Image

“They call us ‘Homophobic’! I ain’t scared of no queers! They are the ones going to hell! They should be scared!” That was the line shouted by my red-faced, Independent Baptist pastor from behind his sacred pulpit nearly fifteen years ago…

Let me first back up even more to my childhood. Born in 1977, I was primarily raised during the 80’s. It was a time when there were no obviously gay characters on regular TV and “Money for Nothing” by Dire Straights had the lyric “that little faggot with the earring and the make-up” playing on the radio. The 1980’s saw the end of the golden age for those who wanted a primarily gay-free pop culture. Outside of the correlation made between the outbreak of HIV/AIDS and homosexuality, I don’t remember many other references to gays by the media during my childhood.

I didn’t have any inherent dislike of gay people growing up. Though, being called a “fag” or “queer” by a peer was considered highly unfavorable and generally started a fight. Even though homosexuality wasn’t a primary topic of conversation during those years, when it was mentioned, it was always a negative thing and typically spoken of with disgust. “Queers” were people you had to watch out for. They were the kind that messed with little boys. I don’t recall a single correlation of homosexuality with anything less than evil in daily life or the media until I was in my teens. If I’d grown up somewhere other than Indiana, that may not have been the case. But, my childhood was during the 80’s and I was a Hoosier.

I didn’t know anyone who was outwardly gay in school until I was a senior and one girl came out as a lesbian. I did not know her well, but I did give her a ride home from school once. Even with all the negativity toward gays growing up, I had no dislike for gay people. Or rather, since I didn’t really know any, I didn’t dislike the idea of people being gay.

I remember the TV movie “Doing Time on Maple Drive” in 1992. Jim Carrey was in it and played the alcoholic brother of a young, closeted, gay man. I really liked that movie. After watching the movie, I recall asking myself, “Am I gay?” I didn’t feel gay, but I didn’t have a girlfriend at the time either. After a day or two, I concluded for certain that I wasn’t gay.  Shows like that make you think and ask deep, uncomfortable questions. That’s one reason why conservatives don’t want shows like that on TV.

A guy in his mid-thirties, Walter, was the first gay person I actually became friends with. He was a prep guy in the kitchen at the country club I worked at part-time on the weekends my junior and senior years of high school. He was a nice guy and was always joking around. Once, I had a mishap in the kitchen and exclaimed, “Damn! I almost poked my eye out!” Walter told me that it would be horrible if I lost an eye, because my eyes were pretty. After that, my other busboy friends nicknamed me, “Pretty Eyes.” It wasn’t meant to be a derogatory name. They weren’t making fun of me because a gay guy thought I was cute. It was just a funny nickname… kind of like how we called the sous chef, “Spider.” Though, I don’t know how he earned that moniker.

Walter was a cool guy and was very kind to everyone. I once got upset when a drunk wedding guest at the country club was joking about gays within Walter’s earshot. I could see that it hurt his feelings and that bothered me. There was another gay man that worked there for a while. He was the head chef and was a jerk. I learned that being gay doesn’t make you act one way or another.  As is the case with all types of people, regardless of ethnicity, color, creed, or sexual orientation, you are in charge of your own character and behavior.

It wasn’t until I became a Christian and started really caring what the Bible had to say that I found out gays actually were evil after all. I got “saved” the summer after I graduated high school and later began attending a fundamental church when I was nineteen. At my first church, they didn’t talk a lot about gays. Most people were nice. They loved gays, but just despised their sin like you were supposed to. Only after the pastor left and that church dispersed did I end up in a church that really hated gays in a comprehensive fashion.

The only other congregation I knew anyone at in the town of Mooresville, In. was Victory Baptist Church. I’d been to a revival there and it seemed lively. As a newly married couple of twenty-one, my wife and I started attending Victory and quickly made it our official church home. We remained members there for several years and I also did some ministry. But, the general disdain for gays was more than obvious. They weren’t “gays” anyway. “Gay” means happy and gays are actually miserable people, so we were told. They should only be called “queers,” “fags,” “Sodomites,” or other similar terms.

The ideology was an uncomfortable fit for me, like a sweater two sizes too small. But, I was a young, impressionable man. And the most important thing was that they had “Bible” on their beliefs. The Bible DOES say to stone homosexuals in the Law. Jesus DID validate the Law of Moses. Paul DID write that those who burned in lust for the same sex were worthy of death. Not only that, but those who supported them deserve condemnation as well. I didn’t particularly have anything against gays, but my God did. I didn’t want Him mad at me, so I accepted that ideology for a span of time.

Let me give you a “through the looking glass” view of what it’s like to be in that place dogmatically… you say you aren’t “homophobic” because you aren’t afraid of gays in a one-on-one way. (I mean, they’re sissies right? So they can’t beat you up.) Yet, you are terrified of their impact on culture at large. The idea that the traditional, fundamental voice may lose the cultural microphone in America is unspeakable. Any one getting to speak a positive word publicly for gays equals persecution of you personally. The “Gay Agenda” is evil, anti-God, and wants to steal your Christian liberty in America. That’s what the fundamental pastors say anyway. You outwardly express that you “hate the sin, but love the sinner.” Though, you quietly despise the sinner too. They are an abomination to God. You can’t love God AND love those who implicitly spit on His Word at the same time in any genuine or uncondescending way. You won’t even allow yourself to enjoy watching Ellen on TV. (Our pastor always referred to her as, “Ellen Degenerate”.)

In the end, the pastor’s racism got to me more than his homophobia. The New Testament, for the most part, disagreed with his racism. So, I talked to him about the racism issue privately. After being called an “Antichrist,” I left the church. But, the condemnation of gays followed me out the door in the Bible tucked under my arm.

As I grew in maturity and compassion over the years, my “too-small sweater” convictions became ever tighter and more uncomfortable. To be clear, I was very compassionate toward gays prior to adopting Biblical dogma about homosexuality. It took my religion to numb my natural instincts for some years. I did not hate or despise gays during those next few years. I actually had quite a love and understanding that I had to forcibly repress in order to align with the Sacred Text. The final nail in the coffin for the negative convictions I had embraced toward LGBT individuals came in 2012.

One day when I was messing around on Youtube, I saw a video post titled, “Same Love.” I had no idea what it was, but I clicked on the link.

I watched that video which now has well over 1oo million views when it was a new post gone-viral. I was sitting alone at my laptop in the house. I don’t recall where my family had gone that afternoon. The words of that song, the story, and images were exciting a part of my human conscience that I had turned off for over a decade. It actually made me cry. I think I watched it several more times right after. But, even though it moved me deeply, I wasn’t bold enough to share it on my Facebook wall at the time.

I had already been wrestling with my faith and beliefs in general for some months. But that song was a sniper’s shot directly to one specific conviction that had to be confronted and done away with. Since then, I have allowed myself to fully break free from ancient and repressive dogmas. My natural instincts to love other people, regardless of sexuality, exist unhindered. I am actually ashamed of the quiet and disingenuous spite for homosexuals that I carried for those years. It wasn’t a preeminent thing in my life. Yet, it did exist. It sat deep under the surface, but ready to be activated when occasion called for it. That is sad. I apologize to the LGBT community for my lack of insight toward homosexuality during that stage of my life. I am sorry for not lifting my voice for your freedom in our culture earlier. I will now.

There are moments and events that can be a tipping point for things in our lives and in our culture. But for me, I will never forget where I was the first time I heard the song, “Same Love.” Many thanks to you Macklemore, Ryan Lewis, and Mary Lambert. Much love to you. –Luke Austin Daugherty

After HJR-3 is Passed in Indiana, THEN we can Really Work on Getting “Traditional”!

I am in gleeful expectation of the full House vote on the HJR-3 Amendment, also known as the, “Gay Marriage Ban,” this coming week. Of recent days, I have been increasingly unsettled by the proposition that my fellow Indiana citizens (the gay ones) may be able to legally marry in the future.

This has been very troubling to me. I have been happily married to my wife, Angela, for 15 years now. Our anniversary is approaching in May. Though our marriage has been highly stable and we have five kids, I am afraid that if the gays were allowed to have legal unions, my wife and I may never see our 16th anniversary. There is something about the notion of icky gays marrying legally that I think would crumble my own traditional marriage. As a couple, my wife and I have made it through good times and bad, the deaths of loved ones, and seeing each other make it through close brushes with death. But, the weight of living in a culture where homos could have their sinful partnerships justified by legal marriage would be more than our marriage could bear. If that was the case in Indiana, I think my divorce would just be inevitable…

That said, I ask all lawmakers in Indiana that cast a ballot on HJR-3 next week to vote a loud, firm, and resonant, “YES!” Then, let’s get this thing through the State Senate and on the public ballot next November so all Indiana citizens can have their say! And their say should be, “YES! We vote against gay marriage! Because it’s already illegal here, but an amendment to the State Constitution would make it REALLY illegal!”

Yet, once we have that item checked off the list, we have so much farther to go for “traditional values” in Indiana. I’ve been reading my Bible a lot recently and there are some other serious matters that must be addressed. We need a few more key laws and amendments added that can help us navigate our way back to a more “traditional” and wholesome culture, guided by the Bible. Below is my personal wish list for traditional laws that I would like added to our Indiana code in the near future:

  1. Once we’ve blocked the gays from marrying, we need an amendment that solidifies the legality of REAL traditional Biblical marriage…polygamy. If one wife is good, then two or three should be better. If you are super-rich, like King Solomon, you can have hundreds, plus hundreds of prostitutes. Whatever floats your boat. Unless you are a lesbian. Then you can’t have any. (Ps. Make prostitution legal too. Without it, we wouldn’t have the Tribe of Judah that Jesus eventually came from)
  2. With all the pressure to make Indiana a more “business friendly” state, we need to reinstitute slavery. The Bible is very pro-slavery and even tells slave masters the right way to beat their slaves, so we can just copy/paste the Bible text into our state code to keep it simple. Obviously, we wouldn’t want to transgress the rights of our fellow Hoosiers and let’s not make this a “black-white” thing like the last time. Rather, we’ll do as our more moral and ancient forefathers did in the Scripture. We can just send people over to a bordering state (I suggest Illinois) and forcibly bring unfortunates back to Indiana to be our slaves. It’s good for corporations. And what’s good for corporations, is good for Indiana.
  3. Since we have a lot of over-crowding of our jails and juveniles, we should make more crimes capital offenses. If parents could just stone their rebellious and/or fornicating kids, problem solved. Also, go heavy on people who deny Yahweh (and we’ll toss in Jesus). Make belonging to a “false religion” a crime punishable by death again. But, let’s forget about the Sabbath thing. Closing shop one day a week can be bad for business. And, if you could be killed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, how could you play golf on your day off? Also, go easy on greed, adultery, and lying. We can’t put a portion of our own lawmakers behind bars now can we?

(Please note: the above article is satire. Don’t hate me. Unless you actually like the article…then you can hate me)

Please make your voice heard by your representative before next week. I did. Follow the link below.

http://www.freedomindiana.org/hjr3/

Image

The “Friendly Atheist” and Indianapolis Star on my CD “Half Life”

Image

I was excited this week to see a story on my new CD in the Indianapolis Star AND on the Friendly Atheist blog! The CD was recorded in 2012 and released in 2013.

Check out the stories and check out the CD! It is available on iTunes, Amazon, and CDbaby. See links on the stories and for the CD below.

Indy Star article by Dave Lindquist:

http://www.indystar.com/story/entertainment/music/2014/01/20/daugherty-pazz-jop-taylor-swift-aronoff-grammys-beatles/4655397/

Friendly Atheist blog by Hemant Mehta:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/01/21/this-singer-songwriter-made-an-album-thats-half-christian-and-half-atheist/

CD preview and download sites:

http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/lukeaustindaugherty

4 Reasons in Defense of Bill Nye Debating Ken Ham

Image

When I heard several weeks ago that Bill Nye would be debating Ken Ham at the “Creation Museum,” I was beyond excited. Not only that, but I ACTUALLY got one of the less than 1,000 tickets to the event! (see my previous blog, “I Got a Golden Ticket! I’m Going to the Nye vs. Ham Debate!”)

Since then, I’ve noticed quite an outcry against Nye participating in the debate with a “young earth creationist.” There is the assertion that Nye’s presence will give the Creation Museum and it’s founder, Ken Ham, a new level of credibility. Also, that the task is a waste of time because those who don’t regard modern science over their religious dogmas regarding the age of the earth, evolution, etc. will not change their minds anyway. Some suggest that Nye, like Richard Dawkins, should eschew debates with creationists outright.

Let me give you several reasons why I support Nye participating in the debate:

1. Nye is a true ambassador for science- From 20 years ago with the “Bill Nye the Science Guy” show until recent years appearing on many news shows, Nye desires to educate the masses about the Scientific Method and demonstrable facts about the world and cosmos. We live in a Nation where nearly everyone uses advanced technologies, yet the vast minority of people is scientifically illiterate. We NEED people like Bill Nye, Neil Degrasse Tyson, and others who are giants in the scientific community, yet passionate and able to deliver a zest for science to the masses.

2. Bill Nye ISN’T a “debater”- Some have decried Nye’s potential potency as a debater against Ham, who is a seasoned debater for his YEC cause. Ham knows his “argument” well and is very experienced at presenting it. You can see Ham’s unforgiving debate style even against a fellow believer that holds an “old earth” position in his square off with Hugh Ross in this video.

Bill Nye is a natural educator, not a debater. He follows the patient, explanatory pattern of his own professor in college, Carl Sagan. Sagan’s desire to kindly and methodically impart scientific facts is illuminated in this video of his dialogue with a creationist challenging evolutionary science decades ago:

You can note Nye’s similar style in this video where he was supporting the issue of climate change:

In this ongoing, “beating a dead horse,” creationist vs. evolutionary science battle; we need more dialogue and less debate. Bill Nye can be a HUGE part of that needed dialogue.

3. People DO actually change their minds- I know, because I am one of them. I used to be a fundamentalist, Young Earth Creationist Christian. I took the book of Genesis as a literal history of the creation of the earth and humanity. Eventually, I had to face science, logic, and reason. When that happened, I changed my mind. Even if it’s the minority of adults who WILL ever change their minds for the better, it’s still encouraging. It is the next generation that will be the real catalyst for moving from fables to fact. Events like this one that Nye is participating in will add needed momentum to this paradigm shift in our scientifically ignorant Nation.

4. “Credibility” isn’t so easily earned- There is a large number of American Christians that give Ken Ham’s teachings and the Creation Museum credibility now. There is a larger number of Christians, believers in other faiths, and non-theists who do not. Successfully inviting an established scientist to a publicized debate isn’t going to cause many of the second group to dispense a new-found credibility to Ham or the Creation Museum. I am going to the debate. I spent my $30 for the ticket. But, I do not have 1% more respect for the veracity of Ham’s position or the Creation Museum than I already did. That said, I am glad the Creation Museum is having the event. I also doubt the “Museum” will lose much credibility with those that support it when they hear Nye’s presentation. Though I believe the greater potential for gains is on the side of science. Facts don’t always win, but facts do possess more traction than fables in the long run. We can’t be afraid of the bullying of fables or those who preach them as truth. I applaud Bill Nye for being willing to confront a premier preacher of these fables on Ham’s own turf.

I am in great anticipation of this event on the 4th of February. Please follow my blog for more updates and information before, during, and after the debate! For more information and opinions on this debate, see the links below:

AronRa’s take on the debate:

Bill Nye talks about debate:

Bill Nye’s original viral video against creationism:

Ken Ham’s initial response to Bill Nye’s viral video against creationism:

The Friendly Atheist’s blog on the debate:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/01/09/why-the-bill-nyeken-ham-debate-may-not-be-such-a-bad-thing/

 

Smile. Things Are Getting Better…Really.

"Smiley Face" art by my daughter Lydia Daugherty

“Smiley Face” art by my daughter Lydia Daugherty

It’s easy to get bummed out about life; especially when your own isn’t going so smooth. But, there are legitimate reasons to be encouraged about things in general. As a human species, we are actually making real headway in some important areas.

From unintended pregnancies and absolute poverty, to overall violence and murder, statistics are improving. Since the numbers in these stats represent humans, the stats really mean something. The “macro view” of life today is a bit sunnier than it used to be.

I first took notice to some of these trends last year when exploring Dr. Steven Pinker’s work on violence and murder rates across the span of recorded human history. Not only have the rates of violence and murder gone down over the centuries as a whole, there have been some noticeable declines in the last half century.  If you’d like to see a condensed presentation of his work in the area of violence, please view his TED Talk, “The Surprising Decline in Violence,” in the link at the bottom. He has also done other extensive talks and writing on the subject.

After seeing a very recent video on some other improvements in the world from John Green, “GOOD NEWS: 14 Reasons 2014 May Be the Best Year Ever,” I decided to share some of the good news with my readers. He briefly covers some good related data in the video below.

Is there still plenty of room for humanity to improve? Sure. Do many people still suffer preventable ills and injustices? Of course they do. Are there still areas of the world where tragedy is the present norm? Yes. So, we still have much room for progress and there are lots of opportunities to make a difference.

For some though, I know there is a resistance to such assertions of global improvement. I have gotten some ideological “push back” in personal conversations from people who actually believe and/or hope things are getting worse on the large scale. I’ve also run across the same thing on social networking in some cases. In relation to these anecdotal experiences, I’d like to offer two possible reasons for the denial of human progress.

First, we humans tend to have a very myopic view of “life” in general. We project our own experiences onto the masses, unable to see things from the perspective of others. Such a self-regulated scope can have negative implications in two distinct ways: 1. if we “have it good” and are very optimistic in general, we can forget that many others don’t get along so well and/or may be suffering in ways that we could help alleviate. 2. If our own life is rough, we can be depressed about life in general and not realize that things are better for many others and can get better for us as well. That pessimism can create an infinite loop of negativity and a feeling of situational impotence in life.

The second reason is something I’d like to introduce. I have not seen this formally referred to before, so I’ll name it myself. I’ll call it an, “Apocalyptic Bias.” I have seen this bias at work personally in the lives of others and my own life in years past. For those that embrace the fundamental “end times” doctrines of some major religions or some cults, there is a tacit need for things to be getting worse. A particular holy book, prophet, or god said things would be declining, so they are. Also, when there is a deep cognitive desire for a forthcoming “salvation” to rescue one from the mundaneness of life, things must get worse before they get better. Any data that does not jive with such a worldview must be retooled, ignored, or spun in a way that fits the apocalyptic paradigm.

To allow that the overall picture of humanity is improving is to admit you are wrong theologically or that you might not be in the “chosen generation” to experience the Apocalypse, Rapture, etc. Either scenario makes for a potentially long, boring life working and paying taxes for decades before a natural death whisks you away from the lively side of this terrestrial plane.  Such a life is definitely not as exciting as parting skies, raining fire, demonic locusts, and angelic trumpets sounding.

All that said some important things are getting better. Why? There are multiple causes. Many people are helping others and improving their own selves as well. The world is getting smaller, so it’s easier for individuals and groups to have a global impact. Also, with the instantaneous dissemination of information via the internet, people around the world have access to positive ideas that they were not exposed to even a decade ago. Many who have only known backward and repressive dogmas in the past are being enlightened by the arts, superior ideologies, and science. More than ever, humans are empowered to write their own story or edit the one they were written into.

So my fellow homosapiens, turn those frowns upside down…

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUhA6fjgnLY