Christianity continues its decline in the US, unbelievers and the non-affiliated increase

May 13, 2016 • 11:30 am

I’m busy today, but wanted to call attention to a new Pew survey, “America’s changing religious landscape”, which gives some good news to atheists and anti-theists. (The report’s summary is here, and the full pdf is here.)

The upshot: the proportions of Christians, Catholics, and Protestants in the U.S. are falling, while the proportion of “nones” (those not formally affiliated with a church, which includes unaffiliated God-believers, “spiritual” people, atheists, and agnostics) is rising—and rising rapidly. Have a gander at the data from 2007-2014.

PF_15.05.05_RLS2_1_310px

You can see that, lest we worry that other faiths are filling the lacuna of departed Christians, that’s not the case: non-Christians went up only 1.2%, while the unaffiliated rose by 6.7%. Here’s Pew’s summary, which doesn’t add much but I thought I’d put it in for those who like words more than plots:

But the major new survey of more than 35,000 Americans by the Pew Research Center finds that the percentage of adults (ages 18 and older) who describe themselves as Christians has dropped by nearly eight percentage points in just seven years, from 78.4% in an equally massive Pew Research survey in 2007 to 70.6% in 2014. Over the same period, the percentage of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated – describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” – has jumped more than six points, from 16.1% to 22.8%. And the share of Americans who identify with non-Christian faiths also has inched up, rising 1.2 percentage points, from 4.7% in 2007 to 5.9% in 2014. Growth has been especially great among Muslims and Hindus, albeit from a very low base.

Here’s a breakdown by religion. “Outlier” forms of Christianity, like Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, seem to be holding steady, but constitute only a very small proportion of the population. Muslims have nearly doubled their proportion, though it’s low, and Hindus have shown a modest increase. This is probably due to either immigration or higher birthrates:

PR_15.05.12_RLS-00

Now the data are in terms of percentages, but the population is growing, so percentages don’t translate directly into numbers. For example, though Evangelical Protestants have dropped 0.9% in proportion, their numbers have risen from 59.8 million to 62.2 million. But don’t worry, folks, for I think what matters is the proportion. And if you look at the number of “nones”, it has risen drastically.

PF_15.05.05_RLS2_unaffiliated200px1
Finally, what about those “nones”? The data show that the increase in the unaffiliated is higher in the older age groups, but it’s gone up in all of them.

Screen Shot 2016-05-13 at 8.24.45 AM

And Pew’s analysis of how the proportion of atheists and agnostics among is rising. Atheists are still only 3.1%, but if you add agnostics it’s 7.1%, and I bet a lot of the other nones, especially the “spiritual” ones, have beliefs that aren’t harmful to society. Pew:

As the ranks of the religiously unaffiliated continue to grow, they also describe themselves in increasingly secular terms. In 2007, 25% of the “nones” called themselves atheists or agnostics; 39% identified their religion as “nothing in particular” and also said that religion is “not too” or “not at all” important in their lives; and 36% identified their religion as “nothing in particular” while nevertheless saying that religion is either “very important” or “somewhat important” in their lives. The new survey finds that the atheist and agnostic share of the “nones” has grown to 31%. Those identifying as “nothing in particular” and describing religion as unimportant in their lives continue to account for 39% of all “nones.” But the share identifying as “nothing in particular” while also affirming that religion is either “very” or “somewhat” important to them has fallen to 30% of all “nones.”

Screen Shot 2016-05-13 at 8.25.27 AM

For those who say, “American will always be a religious country”, my response is, “I wouldn’t bet on it.”

h/t: Barry

Harvard to punish students belonging to single-sex non-Harvard organizations

May 13, 2016 • 10:00 am

My Ph.D. alma mater is misbehaving badly these days. Under president Drew Faust, Harvard is starting to turn into an Authoritarian Leftist university. I won’t recount all the ways they’re caving in to student “demands,” but the initiative I’ll describe today, which I learned about from The Washington Post, came solely from the University administration.

According to the Post‘s op-ed, “Harvard’s clueless illiberalism“, the whole issue derived from Harvard’s desire to deal with the problem of sexual harassment and assault, which of course is a good thing to do. But the way they addressed the issue is, in this case, wrong-headed, ham-handed, and probably in violation of the College’s own statues.

President Faust asked Dean Rakesh Khurana to study “single-sex” groups like fraternities and sororities to see if they were contributing to the problem. (Harvard has numerous unofficial single-sex groups, including “final clubs”; you can see a list here, which encompasses both male and female groups.)

Fraternities, of course, are said to be the locus of a lot of sexual malfeasance, though in some cases, like the confected University of Virginia rape incident, reports have been false.  But insofar as fraternities do promote sexual harassment or assault (largely through dispensing enormous quantities of alcohol), they should be reproved and reformed. And if they have a formal affiliation with a university, they can be put on notice or even expelled.

But Harvard’s sororities and fraternities are independent, with no official affiliation with Harvard. They’re just places to live, hang out and party, and they are, as usual, limited to either men or women.

Nevertheless, President Faust considered this a problem that Harvard had to address. Here are excerpts from her statement, which implies that it’s really the fraternities and not sororities that are the problem:

. . . we have rededicated ourselves to achieving a campus where all members fully belong and thrive. For us to make progress on this shared endeavor, we must address deeply rooted gender attitudes, and the related issues of sexual misconduct, points underscored by the work of the Task Force on the Prevention of Sexual Assault.

. . . Although the fraternities, sororities, and final clubs are not formally recognized by the College, they play an unmistakable and growing role in student life, in many cases enacting forms of privilege and exclusion at odds with our deepest values.

. . . [Single-sex groups] encourage a form of self-segregation that undermines the promise offered by Harvard’s diverse student body. And they do not serve our students well when they step outside our gates into a society where gender-based discrimination is understood as unwise, unenlightened, and untenable.

It’s funny to hear Harvard talking about “privilege” and “exclusion” as being at odds with their deepest values. Harvard thrives on privilege and exclusion, and promotes it in many ways. And, of course, these passages refer largely to fraternities, for “gender-based discrimination” must surely mean discrimination against women.

So Harvard had to do something, but, to maintain gender parity, whatever it did it had to be done to men and women equally. You can’t single out fraternities and not sororities.

In fact, Harvard had no brief to punish members of any of these groups, as they’re not affiliated with Harvard at all! Harvard can certainly criticize them, but they have no authority to penalize them.

But Harvard did anyway. Beginning with the class of 2017, any Harvard student found belonging to a gender-exclusive group will experience these sanctions (taken from the Post article):

  • Those students won’t be able to hold any leadership position in Harvard’s undergraduate organizations, including sports teams. That means that if you belong to an off-campus fraternity, you can’t be captain of the all-male football team. Or if you belong to a sorority, you can’t be president of the women’s crew team. Ironic, isn’t it?
  • Those students will not be able to apply for prestigious fellowships, like the Rhodes and Marshall scholarships, that require endorsements from Harvard. Harvard will not support the students by sending the required university recommendation and endorsement.

This is ludicrous. While I’ve never belonged to a single-sex organization (I didn’t try to join a fraternity at William and Mary), they exist, and a student has the right to join one without University action if the group is not part of Harvard. To formally penalize students by withholding leadership positions and those crucial letters of support is a reprehensible and unconscionable act, although one driven by good motives.

Naturally, the students protested. And, as the Christian Science Monitor reports, some of the women are protesting because they want all-women’s groups to help them escape from a male-dominated society as well as to serve as “safe spaces”:

But opponents disagree that the unrecognized final clubs, fraternities, and sororities have an undesirable affect on student life. The #HearHerHarvard movement specifically argues that female-only final clubs and sororities now offer women an important safe place on campus to come together.

“My first semester at Harvard, I lost my voice and sense of self at such a competitive school,” Class of 2016 member Whitney Anderson said at the protest, as reported by The Washington Post. “Joining a women’s organization helped me find my place at Harvard. I finally had a home at school.”

Thus we have even more irony: that one form of Authoritarian Leftism, the attempt to punish students for their non-Harvard activities, is now conflicting with another form: the desire for “safe spaces” free from undesired speech. As the Post also notes, the University’s action is in conflict with Harvard’s Undergraduate Council, which opposes “restriction of any one’s freedom of public speech, assembly, expression, or association.”

It’s unbelievable that Harvard would try to sanction students, and hurt their educational experience, by monitoring their associations with off-campus groups.  My own alma mater is becoming just another Authoritarian Leftist school like Oberlin. President Faust really should rethink her decision.

_______

The president’s email address is president@harvard.edu, and I’ve written her (a copy of my email is in the comments). If you’re a graduate, your letter will be especially effective, as graduates often donate, and Dosh Trumps All.

 

My last pair of boots

May 13, 2016 • 8:30 am

Don’t ask me how many pair of cowboy boots I have; let’s just say it’s in the same ballpark as the number of Ymelda Marcos’s shoes. But I’ve filled my closets and so am getting just one more: a custom pair made by Lee Miller in Austin, Texas.

I first visited Lee’s shop in March of 2010 on a trip to Austin, and posted about it here. A transplant from Vermont, Lee moved to Austin to apprentice with the late Charlie Dunn, perhaps the best bootmaker of his generation. And now Lee has become what I think is the best bootmaker of this generation. He’s made boots for any number of luminaries like Peter Fonda, Lauren Bacall, Darryl Hall, and Lyle Lovett.

When I visited his shop, it was purely to see the operation, for it’s well known that the demand for Lee’s work is so great that he is not taking new customers. But he and his wife Carrlyn (who runs the business and boot-design part of the shop) were so hospitable that when I returned to Chicago I sent them a copy of WEIT (with, of course, a boot drawn in it). Lee decided that anyone who could write such a book deserved boots, so I was allowed to get on the waiting list: three years long at that time. Elated, I put down a deposit and bided my time.

In late July of last year, after five years, I had reached the top of the waiting list and was passing through Austin, so it was time to get measured. Secular activist Matt Dillahunty (wearing his own boots) accompanied me to Lee’s shop, where we spent several hours getting my feet measured and, with the help of Carrlyn, picking out the design, which is quite a complicated process (you have to choose leather, color, scalloping, heel height, toe shape, and of course the design itself). You can see my post about that process here.

I love cowboy boots because they look good, they’re comfortable (far more so than you’d imagine), they’re a truly artisanal product, made entirely by hand with only leather, glue, stitching, a steel shank, and wooden pegs for the soles, and they’re a uniquely American article of clothing. Also, as Steve Pinker (another boot maven) once quipped, “It’s the only way a man can wear high heels.”

I was informed this week that the shop has finally started making my boots, and I asked for pictures of each stage. If you’re interested, have a gander. Mine will be made of kangaroo: a very tough leather that, unlike calfskin, doesn’t crack over time.  The boots are in their first stages of production, with the initial cutting and shaping of leather done by Charlotte, who I assume is an apprentice. (Lee usually is training one or two people to carry this unique tradition to the next generation.)

Here are the photos Carrlyn sent me, along with her descriptions. There will be more to come. I think my boot design is nice, but I’ll leave that to the end:

Here is Charlotte with a vamp pattern cutting out your feet.

Jerry%27s Boots2

Here the linings for your vamps have been cut out, crimped and are drying on the crimp boards. [Vamps are the footpieces that cover the entire front of your foot. The crimp boards are made from the measurements of my feet taken last summer.]

Jerry%27s Boots3

Here is Charlotte crimping the kangaroo vamps. They are wet and stretched on the crimping boards.
Jerry%27s Boots1
The pair of vamps crimped and drying.
Jerry%27s Boots5
Counter covers cut out. [Counters are the heel pieces, made from a separate piece of leather, as are the boot shafts.]
Jerry%27s Boots6
Stay tuned. . .

Readers’ wildlife photos

May 13, 2016 • 7:37 am

Australian reader David Molloy sent a batch of photos from Chile, half of which I’ll put up today. His notes:

Fulfilled a lifetime ambition last month and traveled to the geomorphological wonderland that is Chile (a great recommendation for next WEIT trip AFTER Australia). The Andes, Patagonia and the Atacama lived up to every expectation and more.
All the animals featured are quite common and you’d have to be pretty unlucky to not see any of them if you stayed for any length of time [JAC: more to come in the next installment]. The picture the vicuna was taken at an elevation of 4807 m according to my GPS (15771 ft). God knows what they eat up there. I could barely breathe after getting out of the car to take the pic. The next picture, of the Torres del Paine, has not been enhanced in any way in post-processing – the dawn light was that intense on the walls! The walk up to the Torres themselves is one of the great hikes of the world IMHO.
Southern crested caracara (Caracara plancus):

07-Sourthern crested caracara

Culpeo (Lycalopex culpaeus), a southern species of fox:

08-Culpeo (Lycalopex culpaeus)

Donkeys (Equus africanus asinus), Cerro Negro Norte:

09-Cerro Negro Norte donkeys

Vicuña (Vicugna vicugna) on the altiplano:

10-Vicuna on the altiplano

Torres del Paine:

11-Torres del Paine

Torres del Paine Mirador:

12-Torres del Paine mirador

Volcan Villarica:

13-Volcan Villarrica

Friday: Hili dialogue

May 13, 2016 • 6:30 am

IMG_20160513_120115

It’s hard to believe it’s Friday already, but so it is. And Friday the 13th! Life is short, full of woe and passes quickly. As the Buddha said, “All earthly things decay; strive diligently.”

On this day in 1917, three Portuguese children claimed that they had a vision of Mary, which became the the legend of of Our Lady of Fátima. On May 13, 1940, Germany crossed the Meuse, beginning its conquest of France, and Churchill delivered his famous  “blood, toil, tears, and sweat” speech to the House of Commons. On this day in 1989, the student occupation of  Tiananmen Square began in China; it was not to end well. Finally, on May 13, 1995, 33-year-old mountaineer Alison Hargreaves from Britain climbed Mount Everest without using either oxygen or Sherpas. Sadly, she died on August 13 of that year, falling after a successful ascent of K2.

Notables born on this day include Bruce Chatwin (1940) and Manning Marable, author of the Puitzer-Prize winning biography of Malcolm X (1950), who died of respiratory disease before the prize was awarded  Those who died on May 13 include the zoologist Georges Cuvier (1832), the explorer Fridtjof Nansen (1930), Gary Cooper (1961), and Joyce Brothers (2013). Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili has been reduced to praying for her noms:

Hili: Another Hail Mary and my bowl should be full.
A: Normally you use different techniques.
Hili: Yes, but now I’m conducting an experiment.
P1040236

In Polish:

Hili: Jeszcze jedna zdrowaśka i miseczka powinna być napełniona.
Ja: Normalnie używasz innych technik.
Hili: Tak, ale teraz eksperymentuję.

And, in Winnipeg, Gus wasn’t allowed to go outside yesterday, as it was raining and he hates getting his paws wet. He sat in the window looking longingly at the outdoors. The caption of this photo is “Sigh. . .”

IMG_4891

Goose appears to ask cops for help with offspring tangled in string

May 12, 2016 • 2:15 pm

I got this video from several readers, and then found it on YouTube to show all of you. The story is almost unbelievable, and the video doesn’t show the striking part. But it’s still nice.

The bizarre part, as recounted by WKRC in Cinncinnati, is that a mother goose apparently pecked at the door of a cop car to get help for a gosling entangled in string:

CINCINNATI (WKRC) – It’s not a sight Sergeant James Givens is used to seeing, a goose pecking at his cruiser door, but that’s what happened Monday, May 9, and initially the veteran Cincinnati officer thought the goose was simply hungry.

“It kept pecking and pecking and normally they don’t come near us. Then it walked away and then it stopped and looked back so I followed it and it led me right over to the baby that was tangled up in all that string,” Givens said.

The string was tied to a Mother’s Day balloon among some of the litter near Mill Creek. Givens shot video on his cellphone. He and Specialist Cecilia Charron called the SPCA, but no one was immediately available to come out. So Charron took matters into her own hands.

“Well she has a couple of kids of her own and I guess that motherly instinct must’ve kicked in because it was like they communicated. The mother goose didn’t bother her,” Given said. “So Specialist Charron came and untangled it. It took her awhile because it was all wrapped up.”

“I always thought that they were afraid of people and people say they will attack you if you get close to their young’uns and I was just surprised.”

It certainly isn’t the toughest part of the job, but these officers couldn’t turn their backs on a mother and child reunion.

Givens said he recorded it because it’s something you don’t see every day.

The video shows Officer Charron disentangling the gosling. At the end it leaps free and runs to join its mother and siblings. Notice the communication between chick and mother: they are making noises at each other:

One of the readers, Barry, who sent me the link, had this to say:

I’m forever amazed by these types of interactions. In this case, it’s one thing for a goose to squawk or even poke a human in the leg, but to go up to a car? And peck on the window? And then it walks away and looks back, as if to say, “See? Look! Over here: I do have a problem.” So how does a goose “know” that a human might help? How does a goose engage in conceptual thinking, to “know” that a person is in the car? Does the goose have “knowledge” of some kind, knowing that those tall, bipedal creatures get into these moving objects with four wheels? Amazing.

Okay, do you think the mother was actually trying to get help from humans by pecking on a car?

Who would you trade places with?

May 12, 2016 • 12:00 pm

I don’t know why, but this question struck me as I was taking a walk yesterday.  And I suppose all of us ponder it sometimes: we see some famous person, or courageous person, or person doing good works, and think, “Boy, I’d like to trade places with him/her!” I don’t think about that often, as by and large I’ve been satisfied with my life, but yesterday I thought, “Who would I trade places with if I could?”

So today I’ll give you a few answers, but I’m writing this mainly to solicit responses from readers. And to do that, I have to set forth some Roolz:

  1. You can be a person of any gender.
  2. You can be a person who is either living or dead (but of course you have to have been a person when he or she was alive).
  3. You don’t have to have been that person all their lives, but for at least 15 years (it can be longer), and you can specify which period you’d like.
  4. You have to have lived the actual life that person lived; you can’t change things.
  5. You have to explain why you want to be that person.

Now I suspect many of you will say, “I don’t want to trade places with anyone, I just want to be myself”.  And you can answer that way, though it’s a bit boring.

When I ponder who I’d want to change places with, the people fall into two categories: those who had a life full of pleasure, and those who did the best for humanity in their lives. These correspond, roughly, to the classic dichotomy between the Apollonian and Dionysian lives. Let’s start with the hedonism.

Dionysian:  I would want to have been a rock star, but one who was great in all three areas: composition, virtuosity on an instrument, and vocal talent. When I think of those, it would have to be one of two people: either Stephen Stills or Paul McCartney.  For McCartney, the period I’d want to be him would be from when he first met John Lennon until he turned the age I am now, since he’s still in good nick (from age 15 on). For Stills, it would be from when he started Buffalo Springfield until he left Manassas and his music started waning (roughly 1965-1980, from when he was 20-35).  (If I were to change gender, I’d be Joni Mitchell, also immensely talented in the Three Areas.)

Why a rock star like that? Both of these men gave people immense pleasure, or at least gave me immense pleasure. McCartney, of course, also helped changed the face of music. Stills was a better instrumentalist, and, in his prime, had a fantastic blues voice.

And I’d want to be able to construct a whole song, from the composition through the playing and singing, with nobody intervening (except for John Lennon, which is okay). You’d be very well off doing something that basically has no down side, and it would be easy to meet women. (Both of these guys were really good looking in their heyday, something that I envy; and I am also shy. In fact, I consider Steve Stills is his prime to be the handsomest rock star ever.)

Apollonian. One name springs to mind: Jonas Salk. He not only developed an effective killed-virus polio vaccine, saving millions of lives, but gave it away. He didn’t want much for himself, and I greatly admire that. What satisfaction it must have brought to have saved the lives of so many people, mostly children, and have largely eliminated the scourge of polio from our planet!

********

I don’t have much concern with my legacy, with what will remain when I’m gone. After all, I won’t know about it! Concern with legacies always mystifies me. One thing I can say, though: if Salk hadn’t developed the polio vaccine, someone else would have (indeed, Alfred Sabin developed a live-virus vaccine before Salk, though it became largely obsolete). The musical talents of McCartney and Stills, however, are irreplaceable.

Okay, I’ve had my say. Your turn; and remember the rules. Think hard, too. And no criticizing my own choices!

Steven-Stills-1976
Stephen Stills in his prime

 

853de2b8224c681079a3a66111bd97ec
A younger Paul McCartney

 

jonas-salk
Jonas Salk, hero of humanity

 

Matthew reviews Mukherjee’s new book in Nature

May 12, 2016 • 10:15 am

Siddhartha Mukherjee, Pulitzer-Prize-winning author of The Emperor of All Maladies, and subject to a bit of discussion on this site in the last week, has now published a new book: The Gene: An Intimate History, and our own Matthew Cobb has just reviewed in in Nature (free link).  The book is doing well on Amazon, and Matthew asked me to add this statement for our readers:

“This review was written about a month ago, long before the New Yorker kerfuffle. Although I wasn’t entirely enamoured of the section on gene regulation/epigenetics, it was only a few pages long and I didn’t think it was worth making a point about – there were other fish that needed frying. The book gives a somewhat different take on the issue to that in the New Yorker article, which is not an excerpt from the book – Mukherjee explicitly highlights Ptashne’s criticisms of the all-methylation interpretation of gene regulation (aka epigenetics).”

As for Matthew’s review, it’s mixed, criticizing the first half of the book and praising the second. I give a few excerpts from his review:

Not so good stuff: 

Despite its subtitle (‘An Intimate History’), the historical sections of The Gene, ranging from 1860 to the present, are not intended to show the convoluted route to current knowledge. They are primarily a tool for explaining the basics of medical genetics.

As a consequence, the complexities of the past are ironed out. Discovery is presented not as a messy reality full of dead ends, but as a linear thread leading inexorably to today. Conclusions of past experiments are presented in terms of modern understanding, rather than as a way to explore confused contemporaneous interpretations. This is a road often followed by scientists and clinicians who write history; it irritates historians, who know that the past was more complicated.

. . . Furthermore, because the book centres on medical genetics, anyone expecting an exploration of the state of genetics as a whole will be disappointed. Our Genes would have been a more appropriate title than The Gene.

Good stuff: 

The writing comes alive in the book’s second half, covering the 1970s onwards, and introduced by Enlightenment poet Alexander Pope’s line: “The proper study of mankind is man”. Mukherjee, as a physician, rightly takes that declaration as his own. Here, the book does become intimate. Mukherjee’s account of the development of biotechnology companies in the 1970s is enriched by personal recollections from Nobel-prizewinning biochemist Paul Berg, in whose laboratory Mukherjee worked in the 1990s. The passages that describe patients with genetic diseases are full of the compassion that we would all wish from our doctors. At other points, Mukherjee brings in examples from his own family, in particular his uncle and cousin, who both had schizophrenia, to frame the narrative and form the starting point for his examination of the role of genetic factors in disease.

. . . A final section examines what Berg described to Mukherjee as “the future of the future” — the amazing possibilities for manipulating the human genome that are within our grasp. Mukherjee outlines the rise and fall of gene therapy in the 1990s, always with a clinician’s compassion for the tragic stories behind the technology; and discusses the potential for gene modification with tools such as CRISPR–Cas9. This section concludes with some of what Mukherjee does best, combining stories of real patients with the ethical dilemmas raised by their conditions — in this case, what would happen if their disorders were the subject of prenatal or pre-implantation testing?

Read this review (and others), and then decide if you’ll order the book. Whether you will, of course, has already been determined.