Readers’ beefs of the week

December 6, 2014 • 12:00 pm

Interesting nuttery and outrage have been thin on the ground this week, and I have but three four attempted comments to present.

First, reader SIDNEY COAD WILLIAMS (yes, in caps) is REALLY EXCITED about evolution, so he writes in CAPSLOCK. This is a comment on the post “Ways of knowing“:

ALL FAUNA AND FLORA EVOLVE THROUGH EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES.
IN FAUNA WE HAVE THE BIRTH PROCESS OF THE NEW BORN
IN FLORA THE PLANTS ARE FERTILIZED BY BIRDS, INSECTS, SOME ANIMALS AND THE WIND THE FERTILIZED PLANT PRODUCES SEEDS WHICH FALL ON THE GROUND. WHEN IT RAINS THE SEEDS GERMINATE AND NEW PLANTS ARE BORN. THESE ARE EVOLUTION PROCESSES. EVOLUTION IS A BIOLOGICAL FACT.

Well, all the sentences are true except for the penultimate one, though the first is a bit tautological. But there’s the little matter of changes in the frequencies of gene forms from one generation to the next. . .

*******

But reader Jeff disagrees with him about evolution; this is a comment targeted to the post “Update on the Georgia Southern creationism case: McMullen denies preaching Christianity or creationism“:

Anyone can use the scientific method.
You are no more a scientist than anyone.
Evolution is a Theory. Not a provable law.
What is the mathematical probability that the universe evolved from nothing from 0 to infinity.
Starting with nothing and evolving into the infinite universe….0/infinity…not a probable number.
God/infinity =1 a very probable number infact the perfect number.

God divided by infinity is one? I didn’t know God was a number; we’d probably better check that out with Karen Armstrong and David Bentley Hart, who really know what God is.

*******

Finally, we have a nasty person, one Eric Hines, giving his two cents on the post “Reza Aslan and Karen Armstrong are everywhere, and it’s not pretty“:

To anyone who has read much about terrorism and extremism, the association between nihilism and extremism is a commonplace. Read Conrad. Read Dostoevsky. The association is old: dating back to the bomb-throwing anarchist scare at the turn of the last century. Real true believers become traditionalist establishment figures, even if in very modest ways; desperate people drowning in a sea of meaninglessness become thugs and suicide bombers. How else do you explain secular Westerners becoming ISIS executioners? It’s not the traditional hold of religion–it is the preferability of fake meaning to real meaninglessness, at least for some people. And when it comes to fake meaning, extremist Islam is the method actor of fake meaning. Generally, Jerry Coyne’s speculations on sociology and psychology are about as valuable as mine on population genetics, and until he starts sparing time to give me a call to hear my speculations, he really ought to have a bit more modesty about his own.

You know, although I think he’s wrong, I would have put this one up if the person had a civil neuron on his head. It was the last sentence that consigned him to the hell of being Forever Separated from Professor Ceiling Cat, as well as his arrogant claim that I should “spare time to call” him to “hear his speculations.” Yeah,like that’s gonna happen!

Sometimes I think that when people address a writer on the internet, they completely lack the ability to put themselves in the post-creator’s shoes, and to imagine how one’s words might make the other person feel. Would Eric Hines talk to me like this in my living room? I doubt it.

As for nihilism, perhaps some of those who despair become extremists, but I doubt that much of the nefarious behavior of ISIS itself, which marches under the banner of Islam, stems from nihilism, which, as defined by the Oxford English dictionary, is the following:

Screen Shot 2014-12-06 at 12.41.10 PM Screen Shot 2014-12-06 at 12.41.27 PM Screen Shot 2014-12-06 at 12.41.51 PM Screen Shot 2014-12-06 at 12.42.02 PM

Note the first definition. One would be hard pressed to claim that ISIS rejects religious beliefs, morals, and laws, which of course they try to impose on the people they conquer. Nor do I think that most extremist Muslims see life as devoid of meaning. Just ask them.

And really, this?: “[E]xtremist Islam is the method actor of fake meaning.”  Why is it fake: because Allah doesn’t exist? If so, then all religions are fake, and all believers are nihilists.  Yes, certainly some people may join extremist jihadists because they find it gives meaning to their lives, but once they do so they are no longer nihilists. They have a belief, probably in the Caliphate. The other definitions of “nihilism” don’t apply here at all.

Well, we can argue about this, which is really a semantic issue, but Mr. Hines won’t be able to engage on this site, for he’s violated the basic canons of civility.

*******

Whoops, one more came in just this minute, from reader D M. Wolfe, commenting on Matthew’s post “Lamprey schreckstoff“. This is a good one:

Stop using “nom”, “nomming”, “nommed”, and other variants involving the prefix “nom-” in your writings please, or I will be forced to find another blog that offers an equally interesting evolutionary-biological perspective on things, without cringe-inducing contemporary neologisms.

It’s an order! An order from an arrogant jerk! Are people like this completely oblivious how they come across to others? I guess so. . . .

My response is this:

Dear Mr. Wolfe,

Do you think I give a rat’s patootie about whether you frequent this website or not? In fact, I’m delighted to ensure that you’ll never post here, because I like to maintain an atmosphere of civility, and entitled twits like you don’t get to come into the living room.

Don’t let the door hit your sorry tuchus on the way out.

Cordially,
Professor Ceiling Cat

p.s. Om nom nom nom nom nom nom nom!

86 thoughts on “Readers’ beefs of the week”

  1. Not to be rude, but definition 2 c. of nihilism is exactly what comes to mind when I read some new age bullcrap.

    It’s Deepak Chopra territory.

    1. I dunno- I see Deepcrap and those like him operating more in the realm of, “Anything can mean anything you want it to”; they think the world has existence, just that the nature of that existence can change depending on whatever they WANT it to be!

      1. Their vagueness is no doubt intentional, but the musings on how consciousness constitutes reality is borderline delusional.

        Popular and profitable, no doubt. Still insane and not how reality appears to be.

        But, of course the definition of insane is relative depending on who you ask.

  2. Editorial note:

    “put themselves in the writer’s shoes” should be “put themselves in the reader’s shoes”, I think.

  3. Grrrr stop using fun words like nom and kitteh! EVERYONE STOP HAVING FUN IMMEDIATELY!

    Thus spoke zara-randominternetperson.

    2. If language scolds had their way, English would be a much less interesting and expressive language. OM NOM NOM is a recent invention but it’s onomatopoeia just like buzz, splash, burp, thump, roar, moan, murmur, bark (as in a dog’s), zip, ring (as in a bell’s), hiss, crack … just a few off the top of my head.

  6. Lets all hope Mr. Hines finds meaning in all that fake meaning. Possibly Deepak can help him with that.

    1. I think his fake meaning is probably just in the pocket of another pair of pants or coat. That’s usually where I find mine.

  7. “…and other variants involving the prefix “nom-” in your writings…”

    I hereby nominate Wolfe to be the nominal nomenclator of all the nomenclature in no man’s land.
    🙂

  8. How else do you explain secular Westerners becoming ISIS executioners?

    I’d be willing to be that most such Westerners come from some kind of religious background.

    1. And you would be right. They are usually young people who feel disenfranchised in some way and are looking to be important or make their lives matter. They look at their parents’ lives and see them living happily integrated in Western society, and they hear a conflicting message from a leader at the mosque. Like all young people for millennia, they rebel, and some rebel in an extreme way. (I’m not just making this up – it’s a summary of what institutes that study terrorism have discovered, which I looked into for an article that hasn’t been written yet.)

      1. I seem to remember coming across similar articles. I do remember that a follower of David Koresh, who died in the inflagration, was a young man from a local family. When his father was interviewed he stressed the family’s (including his son’s) strong Seventh Day Adventist affiliation, and made some remark about how they would never have supported anything so cult-like as the Koresh clan.

        So often I hear of young parents returning to church because kids have to have some guidance, or for moral training, or to inoculate them from cults. And I always think, like that’ll work–once you endorse the supernatural, they’re free to take that notion and run with it…

      2. Of course! I also have the impression that in a number of cases there are mental health issues playing a role as well.
        Unfortunately people don’t like to openly discuss mental health when talking about religion or extremism.

  9. Geez, the arrogance and entitlement continue to astound.

    I really do find Jeff’s post pretty amusing though. 0/infinity is not a probable number? What the heck is a “probable number”? Perhaps this person is a first-year calculus student, thinking that 0/infinity is somehow a meaningful expression on its own (sorry, I just finished invigilating a first-year calculus final exam where that type of error is commonplace).

    And God/infinity = 1? That’s a juicy bit of numerology. Does that mean that an infinite quotient ring with unity is actually “God”? What does the big guy have against finite rings?

  10. Although I disagree with Eric Hines’ position, I am at a bit of a loss as to why his comments are “uncivil”. The last sentence comes across to me as arrogant or presumptions, but the rest is presenting an argument.

    I follow this site and like all the content. I am an atheist (born to supportive Catholic parents), but I don’t agree with all of it. I think there is weight in the argument that there is more than religion causing the horrors of Daesh and their lot. Religion is the root cause of the actions taken, but what drives someone there is not so simple.

    Dan

    2. I think that you have the answer to your own question. Why should JAC spare time to call all of the people who might potentially disagree with his ‘speculations’? If they disagree with them they can (a) politely post an a response pointing out why; (b) not read them if they find them out of kilter with their own views and/or (c) post their own speculations about any subject they choose on their own web-site or any web-site they find they do agree with. To suggest that our host should just shut up until he has consulted Mr Hines is clearly an ill-mannered suggestion.

    3. It’s the sentence, “Generally, Jerry Coyne’s speculations on sociology and psychology are about as valuable as mine on population genetics, and until he starts sparing time to give me a call to hear my speculations, he really ought to have a bit more modesty about his own.” that does him in. It’s just plain rude.

      I have a similar rule on my website – disagreeing with me is fine, but do it politely, as if we were talking in my own home. I wouldn’t put up with someone speaking to me like this is my home in the real world, and I won’t do it on my website either. Also, it’s Jerry’s site – he gets to decide what goes on it, and no-one else has any right to have a say in the matter.

      1. It’s also vague – maybe he really does have some good ideas on population genetics; we don’t know because we never met him before.

  12. The first commenter, S.C. Williams, is technically right for most of his points, although his application of the term ‘evolution’ is a little unusual for today. Prior to Darwin the term used to mean ‘to unroll’ or to ‘reveal’, as in ‘to evolve a scroll’. In biology it could be used to describe the course of embryonic development where an embryo gradually reveals its anatomy.

        1. *back after half an hour or so of clicking through the hotlinks there…*

          Ehrm…no, no I wasn’t. But I sure am now. 😮

  13. “Read Dostoevsky”

    Indeed. Then [Mr Hines should] read about him as well. He was a christian existentialist. I quote~

    “I believe that there is nothing lovelier, deeper, more sympathetic, more rational, more manly and more perfect than the Savior;…If anyone could prove to me that Christ is outside the truth, and if the truth really did exclude Christ, I should prefer to stay with Christ and not the truth.”

    For Dostoevsky, the problem of God wasn’t the recognition of truth, but the elimination of doubt. The doubt plaguing Dostoevsky was his struggle to reconcile the suffering evident in the world and the idea of a loving God. I don’t recall him juxtaposing nihilism or extremism in his writing, but it has been a while since I’ve read his stuff.

    1. I was about to chastise Dostoevsky. See what you did Dostoevsky? You confused someone and not in the usual way with Russian patronymics & diminutives.

    2. You know, there’s nihilists and then there’s nihilists. Thoughtful nihilism as an epistemology gets a bad rap: one can be a good person and still reject the validity of morals and meaning. The word gets thrown around a lot as a smear because it is associated with sociopaths and suicides but it’s a rhetorical cheat – you know, kind of like denigrating evolution as just a “theory” by people who confuse the word with “unfounded speculation.” Behaving sociologically is what makes one a sociopath, and going on a killing spree for no reason would be sociopathic not nihilistic. Ending your life because it is meaningless is a psychiatric disorder to be mourned, not proof that rejecting artificial social constructs is evil (it is a symptom, it is not the disease).

      Curt Schilling says atheists are angry because they’re afraid of the meaninglessness they think they face; I’m starting to think believers are so fervent because they know in their hearts meaningless is likely what existence really is.

    3. If anyone could prove to me that Christ is outside the truth, and if the truth really did exclude Christ, I should prefer to stay with Christ and not the truth.

      Wow. Who would ever have guessed that Ken Ham was channeling Dostoyevsky??

      1. But talk about walking a mile in someone else’s shoes. Could you imagine Dostoevsky’s shoes? NO THANKS. He got t-boned by pretty much every horror a human can have: born in poverty, orphaned as a teenager, forced into war, exiled, condemned prisoner, the famous last second save from a firing squad. After all the shit he went through, I guess he had no choice but to become a great novelist. I don’t know what his excuse is for being an existential christian though. I’ve never heard that phrase before…existential christian…like it.

  14. I love the nom threat. Did the reader really think there would be some sort of outcry followed by deep, sustained regret?

    1. LOL
      A bit like Monty Python or something — if anyone says nom again I’m leaving… right that’s it, I’m going…. I’m not coming back…

          4. I crack up by the way they say it. Shrwubary! How to spell it? But in my US English speaking mind it is perfect exaggerated British English as only MP can do. I’ve never really thought about “a shrubbery”. Now that you bring it up, that is something to ponder. It’s probably not even a word, but I use it with the same Python tone sometimes. “Them shrubberies are lookin’ good this year.”

    1. They could have an annual award show aka the NOM’s honoring the outstanding non overlapping perfomances of the year.

      1. That’s an idea.

        I will start working on my submission for a Templeton grant into nom research. About $5 mil should cover it.

    2. Does NOMA not stand for “Non Overlapping Magisterial Areas” … ? I’ll be darned!

      Still works though if it’s constructed as NOnoverlapping MAgisteria.

      1. It’s a little unclear. According to wikipedia it’s “Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA)”, so there are many ways of knowing about NOM research. Personally I’m for the “haz cheezburger” interpretation…

  17. On the second comment, it doesn’t seem to uncommon for some people to confuse the meaning of evolution.
    I don’t think evolution as a theory has anything to do with how the universe got here.
    And why the certainty that there was ever nothing, like it’s a necessarily reasonable proposition that something came from nothing.
    There is no evidence for nothing, so no notions of what could or couldn’t happen from nothing are valid.
    I think it’s likely that there just is … something.

    1. Lawrence Krauss has a great book explaining how it is not just possible but likely the universe came from nothing. He says it’s too bad quantum weirdness doesn’t make sense to us, deal with it. You are right, there is something – now!

      1. One can choose two ways to handle this.

        The creationist idea of ‘nothing’ is of course theological and so impossible. Unless there is a theory that connects it with reality, we can’t test it and it isn’t useful.

        The physicist idea of identifying ever simpler states of the vacuum with “nothing” is a possible way to infuse the notion with usefulness. But while we can posit a pathway there it is the initial state of some parts of cosmology, we don’t yet know that it appends to our cosmology.

        The initial state of inflationary cosmology is only empty and cold and simple (perhaps only one field) because of an extreme expansion process and some funky physics of phase changes. It doesn’t have anything to do with an emergence from a simple vacuum as of yet.

        Krauss is an expert, I applaud his efforts and I haven’t read his book. My layman notion is that he has built a large frame, but our picture may end up on the wall beside it.

      2. I haven’t read the book, but was aware of it. I took into account the kind of nothing to which he refers, and that kind of nothing is something.
        Quantum fields, soup, wierdness are something.

      3. I forgot to mention that I did read a review by David Albert that explored that notion of nothing.

    2. My first programming language was FORTRAN. I used to use the email tag line “God is real unless explicitly declared integer”, but I gave it up after a while because it was just too obscure for most of the people I corresponded with.

  20. With the real uproar in the streets of America this week, I am happy that Jerry didn’t get the usual idiot hate fodder. It was chickens instead of beefs this week.

  21. This is intentionally rude, but this is the beef of of the week and crackpot Jeff cracks me up in the end:

    Anyone can use the scientific method.

    Good start.

    You are no more a scientist than anyone.

    And now you went totally crackpot, besides being terribly arrogant towards your host and his profession. E.g. that the scienc Nobel Prizes go to professional scientists show that there is a huge difference. In fact, science is a meritocracy.

    Ordinarily when people are so arrogant/crackpot, no one reads further. But since this is the beef of the week, and it is funny from now on:

    Evolution is a Theory. Not a provable law.

    Snort. ‘Gravity is a Theory. Not a provable law.’

    This rates high on Baez’s Crackpot Index. How to prove that evolution, the best proved law we know of, is unproved is an open question. But A Crackpot Always Know Better Than Science.

    What is the mathematical probability that the universe evolved from nothing from 0 to infinity.

    Hi hi. That would be a prior of 0 of course. Since we don’t know of, or how to construe, or how to test, a state of ‘nothing’, it is a creationist idea without any evidence and so no use whatsoever. It isn’t a scientific concept (except for when you start to identify simple vacuums with it).

    Goes back to “provable law”, prove that this is a law and people would adjust the posterior likelihood.

    He he. This is confusing biological evolution, which is a law, with cosmological evolution, which is a result of phase changes and may or may not be caused by inherent laws.

    Starting with nothing and evolving into the infinite universe….0/infinity…not a probable number.
    God/infinity =1 a very probable number infact the perfect number.

    Ha ha heehaw ha! Famously, when you divide by infinity you don’t get a number. You can return any number you like, but the procedure is meaningless and the output is not _a_ number.

    Back to crackpot remedial math school for you!

Comments are closed.