Dave Gorman, perfect numbers, and why he left university

September 11, 2015 • 1:45 pm

I don’t know the British comedian Dave Gorman, but this bit on perfect numbers makes me like him. He explains what a “perfect number” is in the sketch, but you can also read about those weird numbers here. When you look at Euclid’s formula for generating even perfect numbers, which shows a one-to-one correspondence with primes, then you realize instantly that there is an infinite number of perfect numbers. But I digress. The skit:

Gorman studied math (or rather “maths,” a term that I find jarring) at Manchester University, where both Matthew Cobb and Brian Cox teach.

h/t: Chris

Conservative Christian legal organization argues that public university football chaplains are equivalent to atheist professors

September 11, 2015 • 1:00 pm

The Christian Post, whose format eerily resembles that of the Huffington Post (see below), reports that the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is pushing back On the Freedom from Religion Foundation’s (FFRF’s) claim that football team chaplains at public universities are an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause. (See a precis of the FFRF’s complaint here.) In other words, the ACLJ thinks that football chaplains are just fine.

But first, what is the ACLJ? Wikipedia describes it as follows:

The American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) is a politically conservative, Christian-based social activism organization in the United States. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C. and associated with Regent University School of Law in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The ACLJ was founded in 1990 by law school graduate and evangelical minister Pat Robertson. ACLJ generally pursues constitutional issues and conservative Christian ideals in courts of law.

It’s not surprising, then, that the group claims that it’s perfectly all right for public universities to pay chaplains to minister to the spiritual needs of their athletes. As the Post reports:

The American Center for Law and Justice has sent out a legal letter supported by 81,500 Americans defending football team chaplains from the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s claims that they’re imposing their Christian beliefs on players. The ACLJ argued that if atheist professors are not considered to be posing an issue to students’ rights, neither should sports chaplains. [JAC: you can find the ACLJ’s petition here]

“University students understand that they will be exposed to a variety of religious and nonreligious views on campus. Sports team chaplaincies pose no threat to the rights of university students to hold their own religious views, any more than does graduation prayer, or for that matter, a professor’s avowed atheism,” the conservative law group wrote in its letter.

But it’s simply insane to argue that atheist professors are the equivalent of football-team chaplains. Professors in a public university who tried to impose atheism on their students would be violating the Constitution—just as much as if they were proselytizing for a particular faith in class. But that’s exactly what the team chaplains are supposed to do. Exposure to different views does not mean that representatives of the state must provide that exposure as representatives of the state. That, in fact, is illegal.

An additional problem, of course, is that the football chaplaincy is coercive: players don’t get to opt out of team prayers, or, if they can in principle, they’ll still feel coerced to participate anyway. For only religious coaches hire chaplains, and if you don’t pray with Coach, you’re pretty much not going to play. (The title of the FFRF’s report is “Pray to Play”.) As the FFRF said in the letter it sent to 25 offending public universities:

“Chaplains regularly lead the teams in prayer, conduct chapel services, and more. These religious activities are not voluntary, as the universities claim, because, as the report notes, ‘student athletes are uniquely susceptible to coercion from coaches,'” the atheist group added.

The ACLJ further argued that if universities can have chapels and religious chaplains, their football teams can, too.

“The Establishment Clause does not compel the expulsion of sports team chaplains who serve voluntarily to meet the spiritual needs of student athletes, any more than the Establishment Clause requires the razing of university chapels that exist to meet similar needs.”

But that’s also bogus. If a college already has chaplains and chapels (and many do, but the public schools have many denominations on tap to cater to many students), why don’t the football players use those instead? As the FFRF pointed out, 100% of college football chaplains are Christians. The students have a choice; the athletes don’t.

In the end, any organization claiming that the presence of atheist professors on campus is equivalent to the presence of paid football-team chaplains is acting mendaciously.

*******

By the way, compare the CP’s banner to that of HuffPo. The Christians are copying!

Loftus has a brand new book

September 11, 2015 • 10:29 am

In general, I dislike books or papers in which atheists tell believers how they should behave or think to improve their “religion skills”. Philosophers Michael Ruse and Elliott Sober have both done this, and I find the act unseemly—like giving a bottle to an alcoholic who really needs to abstain. But I’m making an exception in the case of John Loftus’s new book (out Nov. 1), How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice From an Atheist, for, as the Amazon description below notes, it’s as likely to remove belief as to improve it.

The Christian faith has been vigorously defended with a variety of philosophical, historical, and theological arguments, but many of the arguments used in an earlier age no longer resonate in today’s educated West. Where has apologetics gone wrong? What is the best response to the growing challenge presented by scientific discovery and naturalistic thought? Unlike every work on Christian apologetics that has come before, How to Defend the Christian Faith is the first one written by an atheist for Christians. As a former Christian defender who is now a leading atheist thinker, John Loftus answers these questions and more. He tells would-be apologists how to train properly, where to study, what to study, what issues they should concern themselves with, and how poorly the professors who currently train them practice their craft. In the process, he shows readers why Christian apologists have failed to reach the intelligent nonbeliever. For those Christian apologists who think this book will provide a secret formula to convert the nonbelieving masses, be warned: as an exposé of the present state of Christian aplogetics, it can just as easily be used by atheists to refute apologetic arguments. Thus, this book presents both an opportunity and a challenge to Christians: they must either change how apologetics is done, or quit doing apologetics altogether.

In truth, you can see what it’s about from this screenshot of the contents, which I took from an advance copy.

It’s only $12.88 at Amazon U.S. What do you have to lose? (Except, perhaps, your faith!)

UPDATE: I asked John if he wanted to say a few words about the book to my readers, and he said that I should simply give this quote from the book’s Introduction:

This book is written by an atheist, a non-believer, to Christians who feel called by their God to defend their faith from the arguments of atheists like me. As someone who had formerly been trained to defend the Christian faith by some of the best recognized apologists in our generation—who now argues against it—what I’ll say should be helpful in your quest. My goal is to show Christians how to defend their faith—that is, to do apologetics—correctly, if it can be done at all. It’s also intended for atheists who want to argue Christians out of their faith, since the arguments contained within should be useful for this purpose.

The title to this book is intentionally provocative. Atheists will criticize it because there simply isn’t a way to help Christians do what it proposes, defend the indefensible. Any atheist proposing to write such a book must not be a true atheist. He’s either an unconvinced atheist, or worse, a secret believer. Perhaps he’s motivated by money? Well I assure my readers that if anyone is motivated by money, it isn’t me. And I equally assure them I have not changed my mind. I am still an intellectually committed atheist. Sufficient evidence is lacking to accept Christianity as the truth. Trying to enter into a relationship with a supernatural Being who does not exist is like trying to have a relationship with an invisible imaginary friend. Anyone who has read my other works can see why I think this way. And I stand by those works.

Christians will criticize the title of this book because I cannot be sincere in writing it. Surely I’m no more interested in helping Christians learn how to defend their faith than a vegan would produce a cookbook that included beef, chicken, pork and fish recipes. The truth is that I really am going to offer some sincere honest advice to would-be Christian apologists, especially in Part 1. I’ll also be offering a lot of snarky tongue-in-cheek advice, especially in Parts 2 and 3. I’ll offer some positive advice for what budding apologists should do, as well as negative advice—lots of it—for what they should not do. If they truly seek to challenge non-believers to accept Christianity it should be helpful to listen to me, an atheist who was trained by the best to be a Christian apologist.

West Virginia lawsuit alleging that evolution is a faith is unceremoniously tossed out of court

September 11, 2015 • 9:00 am

On May 27 I wrote about a lawsuit filed by one Kenneth Smith of West Virginia, a suit alleging that evolution was a “faith.” Of course, Smith had to claim damages, so the suit further argued that his daughter’s future education and prospects for veterinary school were being damaged by requiring her to learn evolutionary “faith”.

Here are some excerpt from that suit. (The full pdf is here. Note, as in the extract below, how poorly written it is: the plaintiff apparently brought the suit on his own). First, see how many people Smith was suing, including Francis Collins, NIH director, and Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education!

Then, his contention:

Well, of course, evolution is no more a “faith” than atheism is a religion, and case law from the Supreme Court already stipulates that it’s perfectly constitutional to teach evolution in public schools. Now, according to an piece in Ars Technica, the suit was ignominiously dismissed on August 25. You can see the judge’s ruling here, but I’ll give a few screenshots:

First, Smith was determined to lack standing, i.e., a credible claim that he would be injured by teaching evolution. (I guess this is despite his argument that his daughter’s education would be injured. Absence of “standing” by the way, is the reason why many First Amendment suits brought by organizations like the Freedom from Religion Foundation don’t ever get adjudicated. For instance, for the University of South Carolina’s football team “chaplain” to be declared unconstitutional, there would have to be a complaint by a football player that he was injured by the unwanted imposition of faith on him. And that ain’t gonna happen, for any player who complained would be an instant pariah. Without standing—without an injured party to complain—these suits cannot go forward.

The judge’s ruling on “standing”:

And the judge’s ruling that banning the teaching of evolution is not Constitutional, i.e., the Constitutions forbids “the prohibition of theory which is deemed antagonistic to a particular dogma”:

. . .

The National Center for Science Education has the whole set of filings and rulings on its website.

h/t: Jim E.

Readers’ wildlife photographs

September 11, 2015 • 8:00 am

First, we have three birds, part of a large series (more soon) by reader Damon Williford:

Three members of the cuckoo family breed here [South Texas], including the Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Greater Roadrunner, and Groove-billed Ani, which gets my vote for the goofiest looking bird in the world (but possibly tied with the Hoatzin for that honor). The only other place in the US where 3 species of cuculids co-occur is Florida.

The yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus):

The greater roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus):

The groove-billed ani (Crotophaga sulcirostris). Is this really the goofiest-looking bird in the world?

Reader Dom sent a mimic:

I took these photos in July, 2014, in a friend’s garden in Royston, just south of Cambridge. It was a few inches from a nest of Lasius niger black pavement ants that were swarming with flying males and females. This is Myrmecoris gracilis, and is a hemipteran. In the British Isles it is, according to the best general insect guide (Michael Chinery’s CollinsComplete Guide to British Insects), quite rare and confined to dry grassland in the south of England. If we can trust Wikipedia, it is found across Eurasia, & was named by the Finn, Rheinhold F. Sahlberg, who was from a family of entomologists.

Now the curious thing is that they are flightless – well, mostly. So how do they spread? It seems that some are macropteran or macropterous. That was a new term to me but one I imagine you know – occasionally they produced winged forms which can spread. There is a picture of a winged form here on the Encyclopedia of Life.

Notice the illusion of a “waist” caused by lighter coloration of the thorax:

Just to show a closer photo, here’s a photo from Wikipedia and a few words about how a Hemipteran (a “true bug”) has evolved an ant-mimicking morphology.

The adult insects resemble ants of the genus Formica, the larvae dark Lasius ant species. The appearance of a typical hymenopteran “waist” is created by the paler coloration of the back of the thorax, contrasting with the rest of the body which is mainly black. They are often found together with ants, to which they have a convincing but superficial resemblance. The long rostrum is held inconspicuously beneath the head.

Dom added, in a subsequent email, some remarks about the imperfection of mimicry:

Do you recall this article from last year? “Stimulus Salience as an Explanation for Imperfect Mimicry“ – they said a mimic does not need to be perfect to be advantageous…I also note someone has added some recent photos to his website, nicer than mine –

I am puzzled though by what advantage this insect gets by looking like a Lasius ant. They are not stinging ants like red ants…

Readers can weigh in here, though the “waist” illusion suggests that the mimicry has something to do with visual predation, since ants wouldn’t be fooled by it.

Buffalo Springfield Week, IV: “Expecting to Fly”

September 11, 2015 • 7:15 am

“Expecting to Fly” is clearly a song written by Neil Young, and, for once, he (rather than Richie Furay) got to sing it—on the 1967 “Buffalo Springfield Again” album. Produced by the multitalented Jack Nitzsche (1937-2000), who played keyboard on the album, it features only Young, harmonizing with himself along with a full orchestral backing: the rest of the band simply wasn’t there. It was, according to Wikipedia, intended for solo release, one of two “experimental” songs on the album (the other, which we’ll hear soon, was “Broken Arrow.”)

Once again, the meaning, beyond that it’s about a waning romance, is a bit obscure, though not nearly as much as “Broken Arrow.” But the song is haunting, and do remember that Young was only 22 when he recorded it. Nitzsche’s orchestral arrangement (presumably in collaboration with Young) is superb, especially the plaintive ending.

There you stood
On the edge of your feather,
Expecting to fly.
While I laughed,
I wondered whether
I could wave goodbye,
Knowin’ that you’d gone.
By the summer it was healing,
We had said goodbye.
All the years
We’d spent with feeling
Ended with a cry,
Babe, ended with a cry,
Babe, ended with a cry.

I tried so hard to stand
As I stumbled
And fell to the ground.
So hard to laugh as I fumbled
And reached for the love I found,
Knowin’ it was gone.
If I never lived without you,
Now you know I’d die.
If I never said I loved you,
Now you know I’d try,
Babe, now you know I’d try.
Babe, now you know I’d try,
Babe.

Friday: Hili dialogue

September 11, 2015 • 6:30 am

I will see only one more Friday in the U.S. before I head to Poland and Sweden, and then to Atlanta on Oct. 13 before coming home six days later. Nothing is new in Chicago save the cooler weather and the lull before all the students swarm over campus in about two weeks. Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili and Cyrus are discussing the issue most important to them (notice that Hili is occupying Cyrus’s bed):

Hili: Don’t you get the feeling that we are hungry?
Cyrus: I can’t rule it out.

In Polish:

Hili: Czy nie masz wrażenia, że jesteśmy głodni?
Cyrus: Nie mogę tego wykluczyć.

Time to dump Trump

September 10, 2015 • 6:22 pm

Donald Trump’s history of sexist remarks continues, this time with something he said in a new Rolling Stone piece as reporter Paul Solataroff followed The Donald around on the campaign trail. Relaxing on his plane and watching the news with his staff and Solataroff, Trump provided a running commentary, including these remarks about Carly Fiorina, who, like Trump, is a Republican Presidential candidate:

His staffers at the conference table howl and hoot; their man, though, is just getting warm. When the anchor throws to Carly Fiorina for her reaction to Trump’s momentum, Trump’s expression sours in schoolboy disgust as the camera bores in on Fiorina. “Look at that face!” he cries. “Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!” The laughter grows halting and faint behind him. “I mean, she’s a woman, and I’m not s’posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?”

Since then Trump has backpedaled a bit, claiming that what he meant was Fiorina’s “persona” and not her looks. But who can believe that?

I needn’t belabor the sexism pervading not only that remark, but Trump’s whole campaign, which is continuous with his adult history of attacking women for their looks. It’s amazing to me that any woman (or rational person) would support him after seeing him repeatedly judge half of our species not by what’s in their heads, but by the appearance of the front of their heads.

I would bet big money that Trump won’t wind up as the Republican Presidential candidate a year from November, but he’s getting away with bigotry that wouldn’t stand in a regular politician. Indeed some people actually like the kind of stuff he says. (On the evening news, they interviewed two women about that crack, and neither of them found it particularly objectionable.) Part of me wants Trump to be the GOP’s final choice, as I doubt that he can beat any of the viable Democratic candidates, but most of me simply wants America to wake up, listen to his bigotry against women, Hispanics, and anyone who he sees as a threat—and then write him off as a nincompoop. He remains the Republican front-runner, closely followed by Ben Carson: all a sad commentary on my country.

	Debi on Jesse Singal on the ridiculous…
	Mark Sturtevant on Bill Maher on gender apartheid
	Mike on Bill Maher on gender apartheid
	Laingholm on Jesse Singal on the ridiculous…
	Emily on Bill Maher on gender apartheid