God vs. physics: Krauss debates Meyer and Lamoureaux

March 20, 2016 • 10:00 am

I haven’t yet watched yesterday’s Religion and Society debate at Wycliffe College in Toronto: “What’s behind it all? God, science, and the universe,” whose description is this:

Has a scientific explanation of the universe replaced the need for God as cause of its origins? Could life on our planet exist apart from divine intervention? Is there evidence for a designer?

The video of the event, with speakers physicist Lawrence Krauss, ID advocate Stephen Meyer, and “evolutionary creationist” Denis Lamoureaux, is three hours long, but the real debate, or rather exposition, begins 34 minutes in. I don’t know for sure, but would bet a lot of money, that Krauss plumps for physics while Lamoureaux and Meyer for the importance of either God or his euphemism, a “designer.”

I hadn’t know much about Lamoureaux, but his Wikipedia biography is intriguing:

Denis O. Lamoureux (born May 27, 1954) holds a professorial chair of science and religion at St. Joseph’s College at the University of Alberta, Canada. He has doctoral degrees in dentistry,theology, and biology. The author of Evolutionary Creation and of I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution, he has also written (along with Phillip E. Johnson) Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins, on the creation-evolution controversy (Regent College, 1999).

Lamoureux, an evangelical Christian and a former young-earth creationist, calls himself as of 2013 an evolutionary creationist, and lectures and writes widely on the topic.

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution? Sounds like it’s two on one in this discussion.

Intelligence Squared debate: Is free speech threatened on campus?

March 6, 2016 • 12:00 pm

Well, I’m putting up two talks today, but perhaps this is a lazy Sunday and you’d like some brain food. Submitted for your approval: an Intelligence² debate on the topic of free speech on campus. Held last Tuesday at Yale University, a hotbed of student authoritarianism, the topic is this:

Yes or no: free speech is threatened on campus.

The debaters:

FOR (i.e., free speech is threatened on campuses):

Wendy Kaminer, author, lawyer, and free-speech advocate. I have to say that I’m biased because I’ve read many of her articles and several of her books, and nearly always agree with her.

John McWhorter, a professor of linguistics of Columbia, author of several books on language, and a contributing editor of The New Republic.

AGAINST (i.e., free speech is not threatened on campuses):

Shaun Harper: Executive Director of the Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education at the University of Pennsylvania, and president-elect of the Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Jason Stanley, Jacob Urowsky Professor of Philosophy at Yale and author of four books on philosophy. He’s also written several philosophy pieces for “The Stone” column of the New York Times.

Click on the screenshot to see the debate video (click on the “video/audio” tab to the right of the page where you’re directed). It’s an hour and a half long.

Screen Shot 2016-03-05 at 1.17.42 PM

I’ll just give a very brief take. First of all, both in my view and that of the audience, the Kaminer/McWhorter team won, as they swayed more of the audience toward their side.  Here’s the outcome (votes before and after the debate) from the website:

Screen Shot 2016-03-05 at 1.16.02 PM

And this didn’t seem to be a debate about the motion at all: the sides were, as Kaminer noted at one point, talking past each other. Her side really did come to grips with the issue, while the Harper/Stanley team talked around it.  That team made these points:

  1. Few colleges have any official policy restricting freedom of speech, so there’s no problem. That is wrong, as the Kaminer/McWhorter team noted, as as detailed in the Atlantic article noted below. And even if Harper and Stanley were right, there don’t have to be policies, but actions of students, administrators, or both that suppress certain areas of inquiry by demonizing them.
  2. The Harper/Stanley team said that there’s ample evidence for free speech, for the student protestors making demands at Yale and elsewhere are speaking freely. But that, of course, is not the issue, for many of those protestors are asking for restrictions on “hate speech”, safe spaces, and other concessions that squelch freedom of speech.
  3. Harper and Stanley sometimes seemed to call for restrictions on free speech that they construe as speech promoting racism, sexism, homophobia, or, as Harper said, the “lived experiences” that students have had. (Lord, do I hate that phrase!). They were somewhat disingenuous in maintaining that black students (the topic of much of the debate) don’t want speech codes, but consciousness-raising and recognition of their humanity. But as we’ve seen, many student demands are such as to place certain topics of discussion off limits. I believe it was Harper who said that we are “talking about effect of speech on oppressed and marginalized groups,” implying that that kind of speech is dangerous and that we have to take into account our words on such groups. Of course we should, but we shouldn’t automatically shut up when these groups tell us that they’re offended, or accede to all their demands.

The Atlantic has a nice postmortem on the debate written two days ago by Conor Friedersdorf:  “The glaring evidence that free speech is threatened on campus.” I consider it a must-read, as it summarizes all the repressive incidents and speech codes that, say Harper, don’t or didn’t exist. It is the direct refutation of their thesis, and a good evaluation of the two sides’ performances.

Note that both Kaminer and McWhorter didn’t have all Friedersdorf’s data right at hand during the debate, but also said that they were aware of them. (There was simply no time for them to go into this kind of detail.) In this sense Harper and Stanley resembled creationists by denying that there was substantial evidence supporting the other side, performing a kind of “Gish Gallop.”

I’ll give just two excerpts from Friedersdorf’s piece, but do read the whole thing. After listing many of the schools (and believe me, there are lots of them) which have official policies restricting speech, he repeats a statement that Harper made:

“Wendy, it could be that maybe we’re talking to completely different students and hearing completely different things, because quite honestly, when we have students in our studies who are talking with us about the realities of race on their campuses… when we hear students of color unpack these painful stories and these microaggressions and stereotypes and other things that have happened to them, we ask them, ‘What is it that you want the institution to do?’ Never once, not once have I heard them say anything about a speech code.”

Well, Friedersdorf shows that’s hogwash:

. . . I fail to understand how any scholar who takes the campus climate and last semester’s protests as a core focus of their research could miss student demands to punish speech. The Wall Street Journal reported on a survey of 800 college students that found 51 percent favored speech codes. Yale protestors formally demanded the removal of two professors from their jobs in residential life because they were upset by an email one of them wrote. Missouri law students passed a speech code that Above the Law called Orwellian. Amherst students called for a speech code so broad that it would’ve sanctioned students for making an “All Lives Matter” poster.

At Duke, student activists demanded disciplinary sanctions for students who attend “culturally insensitive” parties, mandatory implicit-bias training for all professors,  and loss of the possibility of tenure if a faculty member engages in speech “if the discriminatory attitudes behind the speech,” as determined by an unnamed adjudicator, “could potentially harm the academic achievements of students of color.”

At Emory, student activists demanded that student evaluations include a field to report a faculty member’s micro aggressions to help ensure that there are repercussions or sanctions, and that the social network Yik Yak be banished from campus.

Activists at Wesleyan trashed their student newspaper then pushed to get it defunded because they disagreed with an op-ed that criticized Black Lives Matter. Dartmouth University students demanded the expulsion of fraternities that throw parties deemed racist and the forced a student newspaper to change its name.

Need I go on?

Friedersdorf then goes after Stanley, whose performance in the debate I considered execrable, since he avoided the main issue and wanted to concentrate not on whether speech was threatened, but on issues of oppression and marginalization.

Harper’s ally in the debate, the Yale philosophy Professor Jason Stanley, didn’t perform any better. During portions the event, he claimed that folks on the other side, who say free speech is under threat, aren’t really engaged in a debate about free speech––he said the real debate is about racism and anti-racism and about leftism. In this telling, free speech is being invoked as a cover, in service of less-sympathetic agendas.

. . . the broader claim about free-speech defenders—which is lamentably common in public discourse on the subject—can be refuted a dozen different ways. Here’s one: Many college newspapers are struggling with free-speech issues that have nothing to do with race or leftism, as David Wheeler reported.

Or consider another narrow area of campus expression that is under threat: the formal speech, delivered to a broad audience. We’ll restrict our “threat survey” to a single year.In 2015 alone, Robin Steinberg was disinvited from Harvard Law School, the rapper Common was disinvited from Kean University, and Suzanne Venker was disinvited from Williams College. Asra Nomani addressed Duke University only after student attempts to cancel her speech were overturned. UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks participated in an event on his own campus that student protestors shut down. Speakers at USC needed police to intervene to continue an event. Angela Davis was subject to a petition that attempted to prevent her from speaking at Texas Tech. The rapper Big Sean faced a student effort to get him disinvited from Princeton. Bob McCulloch faced a student effort to disinvite him from speaking at St. Louis University. William Ayers was subject to an effort to disinvite him from Dickinson School of Law. Harold Koh faced a student effort to oust him as a visiting professor at New York University Law School.
 That list includes speakers from the right and the left. It involves several controversies that have nothing to do with antiracism. How many examples are needed to persuade Stanley that there is a problem?

I think this question is rhetorical, as Stanley’s mind is closed. Over the past few months I’ve tried to document some of these threats, and they’re occurring on my own campus. Fortunately, the administration of the University of Chicago is committed to pretty much the same free-speech policy as the U.S. government: everything permitted except harassment of individuals, creating a climate of harassment in the workplace, or speech that directly incites physical violence. Here it’s the students who are trying to shut down discourse, demanding punishment of those who speak outside the box.

When you hear the term “hate speech,” you’re probably hearing a euphemistic call for restriction of free speech.

h/t: Cate

Are science and religion compatible?: a discussion TONIGHT between Larry Moran and Denis Alexander

January 29, 2016 • 8:20 am

Tonight there will be a debate at 7 p.m. on the topic of accommodationism: the announcement is below, and if you’re not in Toronto, you can watch it live on YouTube (see below). The participants are Denis Alexander, one of the more amusing accommodationists I’ve read, and Larry Moran, an evolutionary biologist and biochemist at the University of Toronto.

Actually, it’s not really a debate; Larry tells me this:

“Denis Alexander is going to give a 30 minute presentation. Then we’re going to have a ‘dialogue’ for about an hour followed by a 30 min Q&A.”

Science vs Religon

 

Below are the descriptions of the participants. I’ve crossed swords with Alexander several times before, as he’s a Templeton-funded accommodationist who describes himself as an “evolutionary creationist.” You can find some of the posts I’ve made that are critical of his views here, here, herehere, here, and here.

DR. DENIS ALEXANDER is the Emeritus Director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, St Edmund’s College, University of Cambridge, where he is a Fellow. Dr. Alexander was previously Chairman of the Molecular Immunology Programme and Head of the Laboratory of Lymphocyte Signalling and Development at the Babraham Institute, University of Cambridge. Prior to that Dr. Alexander was at the Imperial Cancer Research Laboratories in London (now Cancer Research UK), and spent 15 years developing university departments and laboratories overseas, latterly as Associate Professor of Biochemistry in the Medical Faculty of the American University of Beirut, Lebanon, where he helped to establish the National Unit of Human Genetics.

Dr. Alexander writes, lectures and broadcasts widely in the field of science and religion. From 1992-2013 he was Editor of the journal Science & Christian Belief and currently serves on the National Committee of Christians in Science and as a member of the executive committee of the International Society for Science and Religion.

DR. LARRY MORAN is a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto. He is the author of the blog called “Sandwalk” and one of the authors of “Principles of Biochemistry” (5th edition). Dr. Moran is interested in biochemistry, molecular evolution, and science education. He received his PhD from Princeton University.

It will be streamed live on YouTube, and you can see it by clicking on the screenshot below (not operative yet, of course). My screenshot says 6 p.m., but that’s undoubtedly Chicago time, an hour earlier than Toronto time. I’ll be watching this for sure, and I have high hopes for Dr. Moran.

Screen Shot 2016-01-29 at 6.10.53 AM

Munk debate on human progress: Pinker and Ridley vs. Gladwell and de Botton

November 10, 2015 • 12:30 pm

I haven’t yet watched this “Munk Debate” on whether humanity is progressing, but you can be assured I will. (It’s an hour and a half long). The Munk Debates are held twice yearly in Toronto, dealing with social and political issues. One that you might have seen already is the 2010 debate between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens on whether religion is a force for good on Earth. You can see that one on YouTube, and Hitchens won!

The issue of this debate, held November 6, is this: “Resolved, be it resolved, humankind’s best days lie ahead.” On the “yes” side are Steven Pinker and Matt Ridley; on the “no” side are Alain de Botton and Malcolm Gladwell. Pinker, of course, published The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence has Declined, and Ridley’s just published an equally optimistic book, The Evolution of Everything.

I wasn’t aware that Gladwell and de Botton were on the pessimistic side of human progress, but perhaps readers know more. From what I’ve heard, the debate was really about the value of reason.

Click on the screenshot below to go to the video of the debate:

Screen shot 2015-11-10 at 8.08.06 AM
Matt Ridley and Steve PInker: the “we’re progressing” side
As I said, I will certainly watch this when I have time, but readers who watch it—or have already watched it—are invited to weigh in below, and perhaps opine about who won. There are plenty of other comments on the video page, including one by Peter Boghossian.
h/t: Arno

The New Yorker event: Cats lost. . . :-(

October 12, 2014 • 8:59 am

Here’s a brief report on “You, the Jury: Cats vs. Dogs“, our debate at the New Yorker Festival about the merits of these pets. (Note the correct placement of the comma in the title, as is apposite for the New Yorker.)

Despite our best efforts, Team Cat went to the d*gs last night, as the post-debate audience “applause vote” was louder for dogs than for cats. Of course the “debate” was a bit like our debates on this site about matters like free will and Jesus’s historicity: people come to the issue knowing their opinions, which almost never change.

But it was enormous fun: everyone tried to be humorous but also say something substantive, and there’s simply too much to describe about the two-hour event. I’l show some pictures of the participants, including some I took in the Green Room. (You can read more about the debaters here.)

This first set of pictures are from Fashion Magazine (??); perhaps they considered the subjects the best-dressed debaters!

Below is Ariel Levy, a New Yorker staff writer who wrote an unbearably sad and touching piece about losing her unborn child while traveling in Mongolia (read it!). It won the National Magazine award for nonfiction, and she’s turning it into a book.

Ariel was a hoot, and scuppered Team D*g by showing a photo she took of Malcolm Gladwell (on Team D*g) cuddling with her own cat (see below as well for Gladwell’s treachery). She also quoted, of all people, Thorstein Veblen on dogs!

the-new-yorker-festival-2014-you-the-jury-cats-vs-dogs-with-anthony-lane-jesse-eisenberg-jill_11

From Team D*g, Alexandra Horowitz, who is a professor of psychology at Barnard, an expert in dog cognition, and the author of a New York Times bestseller on d*gs: Inside of a D*g: What D*gs See, Smell, and Know. Curiously, Alexandra used to be a fact-checker at the New Yorker. She had a great presentation (considering her status as a d*gster) featuring videos of two dogs greeting their owners at the door, servile tails wagging furiously, contrasted with a cat “greeting” its owner: sitting placidly on the couch and then running away when the owner approached.  Team D*g made a big to-do about dog servility, which we cat-lovers do not find an appealing trait.

the-new-yorker-festival-2014-you-the-jury-cats-vs-dogs-with-anthony-lane-jesse-eisenberg-jill_4

Professor Ceiling cat wearing his Hili shirt.  Sadly, the slide-clicker I had malfunctioned, putting a wrench in my presentation, but I did the best I could. I talked about how the evolutionary background of cats vs. d*gs—mainly their difference in ancestral degree of sociality—was responsible for all the things we like about cats. Behind me is an effigy of Jesse Eisenberg, who couldn’t make it but sent a hilarious video about his cat.

the-new-yorker-festival-2014-you-the-jury-cats-vs-dogs-with-anthony-lane-jesse-eisenberg-jill_2

Below: Anthony Lane, leader of Team Cat and one of the New Yorker‘s two film critics. He gave the preliminary remarks and a fiery closing speech emphasizing the importance of cats in movies and writing. As I recall, one of his remarks was something like: “Really, and do you think that James Bond would have a honey-blonde love-interest named Fido Galore?”

the-new-yorker-festival-2014-you-the-jury-cats-vs-dogs-with-anthony-lane-jesse-eisenberg-jill_20

Behind him is the Eisenberg effigy, your host, and Joyce Carol Oates.

Malcolm Gladwell on Team D*g was funny, making a big megillah about how bomb-sniffing dogs were important in the war on terrorism, while cats apparently don’t give a damn about the problem. He played to the audience’s jingoism: a low blow indeed!

the-new-yorker-festival-2014-you-the-jury-cats-vs-dogs-with-anthony-lane-jesse-eisenberg-jill_15

Adam Gopnik: New Yorker staff writer and a friend. His opening and closing statements for Team D*g were witty and well crafted. But more low blows: he said that cats were Republicans and d*gs were Democrats, adding that d*gs were Jewish and cats were goyim.  Whatever the merits of Adam’s appeal to politics and religiosity, it’s precisely the opposite for the owners of those animals!

the-new-yorker-festival-2014-you-the-jury-cats-vs-dogs-with-anthony-lane-jesse-eisenberg-jill_27

Joyce Carol Oates wrote a lovely poem that took off from Christopher Smart’s famous  verse, “For I will consider my cat Geoffrey.” Her presentation was her poem, packed with paeans to cats and disses to d*gs.  I got her to sign for me a copy of her children’s book about cats, Naughty Cherie! (her cat is named Cherie); and she and her husband Charlie Gross (a neuroscientist at Princeton) kindly invited me to dine with them at the Union Square Cafe after the event.  Joyce was gracious and personable, even though I was in awe of being in the presence of a famous author; and her husband was garrulous and full of stories. It was great fun.

the-new-yorker-festival-2014-you-the-jury-cats-vs-dogs-with-anthony-lane-jesse-eisenberg-jill_31

This is Jill Abramson, ex-editor of the New York Times and a member of team D*g. I didn’t catch her name at first, and we sussed it out only at dinner later when we remembered that she talked several times about how she had been “fired” in May. Her talk included displaying a golden retriever toy (you can see it on the desk) which, she said, brought her solace in her time of trouble.

the-new-yorker-festival-2014-you-the-jury-cats-vs-dogs-with-anthony-lane-jesse-eisenberg-jill_35

The next batch of photos below are from Getty Images, which puts a “watermark” on its pix:

David Remnick, the judge, who is the editor of The New Yorker.  He would occasionally warn people when they got too close to “the line,” as when the trainer of Sandy (the d*g appearing in the play “Annie”), displayed the d*g’s visage and said “Look at that face!” Naked appeals to cuteness were not tolerated. Remnick had a gavel that he wielded at such moments. (The audience was also not allowed to say “Awwww!”)

457080608

Cat-breeder and filmmaker Anthony Hutcherson displaying two of the gorgeous Bengal Cats that he breeds as a hobby. One of them was on his lap for the entire two-hour presentation, and, as I was sitting next to him, I got to pet it constantly and have it lick my hand. Everyone, including the d*gster Gladwell, was taken by these beautiful animals.  Hutcherson gave a superb talk on the role of cats in history and, countering the tiresome trope of Team D*g that dogs are good because THEY DO STUFF THAT IS GOOD FOR HUMANS (what a solipsistic view of our evolutionary cousins!), showed a slide of a police dog attacking protestors during the civil rights demonstrations of the 60s.

A lovely guy, Anthony offered members of Team Cat some of the non-show ‘reject’ Bengals that he produces. Anthony, if you’re reading this, I may take you up on that!

The Flaunting of the Bengals marked the end of Anthony’s talk, before the closing statements of Lane and Gopnik.

457080620

Jesse Eisenberg sent in a five-minute video from L.A. (Note: you can now watch it here.) It was side-splittingly funny. He pretended to be in Hawaii and extolling his cat Mr. Trunkles, but began turning pages of his notebook revealing the truth: his cat was holding him hostage in New York and was making him pretend they were in Hawaii. As you can see from the notebook, the secret message included “He used to be just passive aggressive.” The next page said “But now he’s just evil.”

457080526

A few of my snaps from the Green Room:

Our Leader, Anthony Lane, checking his cellphone:

A. Lane

Anthony H. displaying the two Bengal Cats he brought. One of the highlights of the evening was the amount of contact I got to have with these beauteous beasts, holding them and petting them throughout the debate. They were remarkably sanguine (what cat would stay in one’s arms for two hours?), and their fur was incredibly soft.

Anthony H

Joyce holding Jungletrax Flowmaster (I think; the other Bengal was named Jungletrax Masterpiece):

Joyce and Cats

Malcolm and Ariel admiring a Bengal. Look at that face! (Malcolm’s, I mean.) As Ariel noted, Gladwell is clearly smitten with cats: he’s a two-timer! Like science and religion, you have to choose! The Bengal, of course, is diffident, taking it all as his due.

Malcolm Ariel and Jungletrax

Ariel, Malcolm, David, and organizer Rhonda Sherman having pre-debate noms:

Nomming

Bill Berloni, an animal trainer and debater for Team D*g, giving “Sandy” water before the show.  Berloni has trained every Sandy in every “Annie” shown on Broadway, and had the dog onstage for his presentation. His message was largely about the untrainability of cats, which from his vantage is a problem, but from ours a mitzvah.

Sandy

My thanks to all members of Team Cat, to Sam Karshenboym and Rhonda Sherman, who were in charge of the complicated organization of the event, to Adam Gopnik who, I’m sure, was responsible for getting me invited, and to David Remnick for chairing the event (though he was clearly on the side of Team D*g!).

Free ticket to the cats vs. dogs debate in NYC this Saturday

October 7, 2014 • 9:44 am

Sadly, one person for whom I’d earmarked a free ticket for the Cats vs. Dogs event is unable to use it, so I’m putting it up for grabs. It’s in Manhattan this Saturday, so you’ll have to live nearby.

The event is this one:

 

Screen Shot 2014-10-06 at 3.15.44 PMScreen Shot 2014-10-06 at 3.15.52 PM

I was going to offer it to the first person who responded, but that doesn’t seem fair, as not everyone’s at their computers. So you have a few hours to win the ticket by entering a simple contest: tell me, in one sentence, why you would like to go to this event.  CONTEST CLOSES AT 3 p.m. Chicago time, so you have a bit more than three hours.  Check the site at 4 p.m. Chicago time to see the winner. And the winner must email me ASAP so I can put the name in at the “will call” office.

I have prepared an awesome argument for cats, though it’s only 8 minutes long. In fact, Team Cat will kick derriere.

The New Yorker Festival, avec les chats et moi

September 8, 2014 • 6:01 am

Today the New Yorker Festival announced its program, which you can see here.  It takes place in Manhattan, of course, and from Friday, October 10 through Sunday, October 12. As always, there are tons of things to see.  And, I get to be in it, in a LOLzy program of debate—to wit:

Screen Shot 2014-09-08 at 7.42.19 AM

I will of course be wearing my Hili shirt.

This will be about the most fun thing I’ve done in years, though I’m not yet sure what I’ll say in defense of cats (reader suggestions welcome, though I want my talk to be lighthearted and infused with some biology and evolution).

The-evolution-of-the-domestic-cat

By the way, Team Cat, led by Anthony Lane (one of the two film critics of The New Yorker, and a critic I much admire) will include, besides me, Joyce Carol Oates (who has a cat; see below), Anthony Hutcherson, Jesse Eisenberg, and Ariel Levy. The others are on Team D*g, led by my friend Adam Gopnik and including Malcom Gladwell, author of Fetch: How We Made Dogs our Slaves.

If you click on the screenshot below, you can go to the “buy tickets” site; these go on sale  at 11 a.m. Sept. 11 and are available for exactly 24 hours. I suppose they’re anticipating a sellout crowd, which is nice.

Screen Shot 2014-09-08 at 7.45.36 AM

But this:

Screen Shot 2014-09-08 at 7.47.48 AM

What? The cats can’t be there to see their great victory? For we will win! I am really looking forward to it, and to meeting those great people with whom I’ll debate.

I get tickets to some other events, too, so it will be extra fun. Stephen Sondheim is talking, as are Neil Young (I really want to see that!),  Larry David, Lena Dunham,, Julianna Marguiles, Randy Newman, Roz Chast, and Jeff Goldblum. So much to do, and so little time!

Any suggestions appreciated, for it for the Great Cause.

The author and her rather chunky cat. (Her current cat is named Cherie.)

tumblr_lj5m5e0vie1qiu5e6o1_4001