Saturday: Hili dialogue (and Leon lagniappe)

August 22, 2015 • 6:30 am

The weekend is here at last: time to kick back and (in my case) buy groceries and wine, and catch up on some reading, including Nick Lane’s Life Ascending (popular science) and Julien Masolino’s new Soul Fallacy (naturalism). Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is enjoying a bit of milk, and Leon is investigating an endangered plant. This is the first day that both cats have biology lessons for us!

A: Isn’t this milk harmful to you?
Hili: Of course not. For thousands of years pastoral tribes were serving my ancestors. We adapted.

I presume that Hili’s ancestors, like milk-drinking human groups, evolved an active adult lactose tolerance. (See WEIT for more details.)

P1030271 (1)

In Polish:
Ja: Nie szkodzi ci to mleko?
Hili: Oczywiście, że nie. Przez tysiące lat ludy pasterskie służyły moim przodkom. Zaadaptowaliśmy się.

*******

Apparently I was wrong yesterday about Leon’s return to the city: the Dark Tabby and his staff are still hiking in the Polish mountains. Here’s his latest monologue:

Leon: What is so unusual about wolf’s-foot clubmoss that it is a protected species?

Leon is undoubtedly referring to Lycopodium clavatum, which, though not uncommon, is endangered in many places because of habitat loss (it grows only in areas undisturbed by humans).

11892248_1009471039073497_4262883669825495258_n

 

Regrets of the dying

August 21, 2015 • 3:30 pm

If you’re a determinist like me, it’s useless to have deathbed regrets about what you didn’t do in the past, for you couldn’t have done otherwise. However, we can, by hearing about others’ regrets, modify our behavior, for neuronal rewiring in the face of experience does not violate determinism.

Herewith is a list I found on Facebook, which turns out to come from a 2012 Guardian piece based on the experience of a terminal-care nurse:

11891996_10206991547087715_7698075826600047496_n

All of these seem sensible (especially the yellow one!)—except for the one about “letting yourself be happier.” How can you let yourself be happier if you’re a determinist? The only way to do that is to somehow grasp that you want to and can be happier, and then take whatever steps you think would bring on change.

Do you have regrets not given on this list?

Brother Tayler’s Sunday Secular Sermon: The GOP God-Off debate

August 21, 2015 • 2:00 pm

I used to think that we should simply ignore a political candidate’s views on religion when assessing his or her qualifications.  After all, I grew up in an era when, at least for most politicians, their faith was a private matter. I well remember John Kennedy saying that about his Catholicism (but of course people were dubious about a Catholic President), and also saying that his faith would have no influence on his actions as President. In my youth, religion was not much discussed at election time. Can anybody remember what religion Eisenhower or Truman professed? And, it seemed, religious beliefs didn’t condition many political stands, although of course the Reverend Billy Graham advised nearly every President.

Now, of course, things have changed. Candidates, particularly Republican ones, try to outdo each other in osculating the rump of faith, fervently professing their belief and how it’s changed their lives. This is both unseemly and unwholesome. How could you not have been embarrassed when Fox News correspondent Megyn Kelly, moderating the recent GOP debate, asked the candidates “if any of them have received a word from God on what they should do and take care of first”? Both the question and the answers were cringe-worthy.

Over time I’ve decided that yes, we do need to take a candidate’s religious beliefs seriously when evaluating their leadership potential. If they’re at all publicly religious, especially in an extreme way, that’s a bad sign. For religion is largely a delusion based on wish-thinking, and do we want Presidents and senators who fall prey to that? Now you might answer that public profession of faith is simply a ploy to get votes, but even that tactic is mendacious.

And then there are those like Ben Carson who really are delusional, for he’s a diehard creationist who says it takes more faith to accept evolution than to embrace God.  If such ignoramuses reject evolution and embrace Genesis, how can we trust them to accept any science? Their critical faculties have been warped by faith.

Now Jeff Tayler, who’s resumed his production of Sunday antitheistic columns in Salon, weighs in on the GOP debate and Kelly’s inane question. At the end, he warns of the dangers of electing rabid religionists. His piece pulls no punches, even in its title: “These religious clowns should scare you: GOP candidates’ gullible, lunatic faith is a massive character flaw.” Now Jeff, tell us how you really feel!

Here are a few excerpts. First, on Kelly’s question, which you can see, along with the candidates’ responses, in the video below:

Now let’s pause and consider the situation. Kelly is a political science graduate from a major Northeastern university, an attorney by trade with some 10 years of practice behind her, and a citizen of one the planet’s most developed countries. Speaking on satellite television (a technological wonder, whether we still recognize it or not, and no matter what we think of Fox News) in the twenty-first century, this sharp, degree-bearing professional American has just asked, with a straight face, a senator (who happens himself to be a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law) if he is receiving messages from a supernatural being. Yet no one in the audience broke into guffaws or even chuckled. And, of course, no one cried out with irate incredulity at the ludicrousness of the supposition implicit in the question (that an imaginary heavenly ogre could possibly be beaming instructions down to one of his earthling subjects). But since the supernatural being in question goes by the name of “God,” in the clown show that was the Republican debate, everyone – audience, MC, and the clowns themselves – simultaneously took leave of their senses and judged the matter at hand legit.

Tayler goes on to dissect the candidates’ answers in true Mencken-esque style, and of course mentions the odious Ben Carson, who appears at present to be the GOP’s second-choice candidate—after Donald Trump! What a clown car that party is! Carson at least gets a bit of approbation, but only because he didn’t osculate God’s nether dorsal parts:

Kelly last turned to Dr. Ben Carson. Perhaps the most disturbing example of how high intelligence and belief in balderdash myths can jointly inhabit a single mind, Carson, so faith-deranged that he denies evolution and has had himself baptized twice, dodged God entirely and offered a reasonable look into how a neurosurgeon sees the issue of race relations. We can only surmise he felt he had elsewhere spoken enough about God. He gained nothing with his audience by leaving the Lord out, but by doing so he at least offered rationalists a tiny respite from the evening’s madness.

Finally, and this is the best part, Tayler eloquently tells us why we must take religion into account when evaluating candidates. As usual, he ends with a call for action, for he’s a true antitheist:

Presidential candidates have the constitutionally protected right to profess the religion of their choice and speak freely about it, just as atheists have the right – and, I would say, the obligation – to hold religion up to the ridicule and derision it so richly deserves. In that regard, nonbelieving journalists in particular should give openly devout candidates no passes on their faith. Religion directly influences public policy and politics itself, befouls the atmosphere of comity needed to hold reasoned discussions and arrive at consensus-based solutions, sows confusion about the origins of mankind and the cosmos, and may yet spark a nuclear war that could bring on a nuclear winter and end life as we know it. I could go on (and on), but the point is, we need to talk more about religion, and far more frankly, and now, before it’s too late.

Discussing religion freely and critically will desacralize it, with the result that the public professions of faith of which our politicians are so enamored will eventually occasion only pity, disgust and cries of shame! or, at best, serve as fodder for comedians. Faith should, in fact, become a “character issue.”

The advances of science have rendered all vestigial belief in the supernatural more than just obsolete. They have shown it to indicate grave character flaws (among them, gullibility, a penchant for wish-thinking and an inability to process information), or, at the very least, an intellectual recklessness we should eschew, especially in men and women being vetted for public office. One who will believe outlandish propositions about reality on the basis of no evidence will believe anything, and is, simply put, not to be trusted.

Come on, rationalist journos, be brave and do your job. Even if Megyn Kelly won’t do hers.

The video I posted earlier has been taken down, so here’s a newer one. Kelly’s question and the candidates’ answers begin at 1:34:26.

Note: Both Tayler and his friend Inna Shevchenko, head of the feminist and antireligious group FEMEN, will be lecturing at the Atheist Alliance of America conference in Atlanta this October. It hasn’t been announced yet, but I’m doing so here. I’m excited to meet both of them for the first time, and eager to hear their talks.

A good man faces his end

August 21, 2015 • 12:30 pm

There’s little doubt that Jimmy Carter doesn’t have long to live: he has liver cancer, and now four spots of melanoma have metastasized to his brain from an unknown source. The prognosis is, of course, very dire. (See the New York Times article here.)

Characteristically, Carter held a press conference yesterday at his eponymous Center to discuss his diagnosis and his reaction to the bad news. Here’s the whole thing. His statement lasts until 7:50, and then he answers questions from the press.

Highlights: The most striking thing, to me, is the sense of humor and calmness with which Carter describes the road ahead, even seeing it as a “new adventure.” This is truly a man at peace with his fate, and his conference is punctuated by many smiles. Perhaps he’s sustained by his faith, but I like to think that it’s simply his bravery when facing the inevitable. And he maintains his eloquence throughout.

4:10: Carter says, smiling, that he’s finally going to cut down his extensive workload for the Carter Center

8:30: He describes his reaction after the diagnosis, saying that he was “surpringly at ease” in view of his long and gratifying life. He adds in responding to the next question that he’s “completely at ease with whatever comes” and he’s “very grateful for his time”.

15:10: Carter notes he still hopes to go to Nepal, but there’s a hitch since it conflicts with his treatment schedule.

16:00: He reflects on his performance as an ex-President, and on the formidable achievements of the Carter Center.

22:25: When asked about his greatest achievements, he says, beaming, “The best thing I ever did was marry Rosalynn. That’s the pinnacle of my life, and we’ve had 69 years together–still together. And that’s the best thing that happened to me.” This made me tear up a bit, for few relationships last that long, much less remain strong that long.

23:37: He gives a funny answer to a question about what he would have done differently during his life. I’ll let you listen to that yourself.

This is the best ex-President ever.

Two vids: a baby and a cat and a baby elephant

August 21, 2015 • 11:36 am

by Matthew Cobb

The first, sent to me by my daughter Lauren, features a baby being introduced to a cat:

 

The second is a gif (pronounced…) features a baby elephant (h/t @kahoakes) – note what it does with the hose at the end.

Clumsy baby elephant loves bath time

I am deeply hostile to the Oxford comma, but appreciate it can sometimes clarify. To be ornery, the title is commaless and we can revel in the ambiguity.

 

Templeton hosts a biology-and-faith conference where the outcome is—surprise!—predetermined

August 21, 2015 • 9:00 am

As I claim in FvF, the largest monetary force behind accommodationism in the U.S. is the Templeton Foundation, which hands out millions of dollars annually to blur the borders between faith and fact. In my latest book I put the net worth of the Foundation at 1.5 billion dollars, but after FvF was in press I found out it’s risen to an astounding 3.34 billion dollars!

Now I know that Templeton funds some pure science, but much of it is mixed with woo (often theologians are included in their project grants); and grant recipients, no matter how secular, are touted by the Foundation to burnish its image. So all too often, cash-strapped scientists line up for Templeton handouts, knowing that the funding rate is around 50% (I may be off here, so take that with a grain of salt), compared to, say, the National Science Foundation’s rate of around 20% in biology, and even that’s an overestimate, as it counts more generously-funded proposals by students and doesn’t count preliminary “regular” proposals, which are rejected more often than not.

Far more human progress would result from Templeton’s deep-sixing its religious and “spiritual” aims and funding just pure science. The theology adds nothing to human progress; it only enriches theologians and promotes their useless endeavors. Let us remember the organization’s mission statement (my footnotes):

The John Templeton Foundation serves as a philanthropic catalyst for discoveries relating to the Big Questions of human purpose and ultimate reality.* We support research on subjects ranging from complexity, evolution, and infinity to creativity, forgiveness, love, and free will. We encourage civil, informed dialogue among scientists, philosophers, and theologians and between such experts and the public at large, for the purposes of definitional clarity and new insights.

Our vision is derived from the late Sir John Templeton’s optimism about the possibility of acquiring “new spiritual information” and from his commitment to rigorous scientific research and related scholarship.** The Foundation’s motto, “How little we know, how eager to learn,” exemplifies our support for open-minded inquiry and our hope for advancing human progress through breakthrough discoveries.

_________

*Ultimate reality—as opposed to what? Proximate reality?
**What the bloody hell is “new spiritual information”?

At any rate, Templeton handed out the huge sum of $1.92 million to BioLogos in 2012 for a series of woo-and-science seminars. Here’s the project description (my emphasis):

This proposal builds upon those foundations as follows: First, we will sponsor a series of annual workshops for leaders of evangelical Christianity (scholars, scientists, pastors and para-church leaders) to dialogue about specific topics at the interface between science and Christianity. These will be patterned after the Theology of Celebration gatherings that we have hosted in 2009 and 2010 and will host in early 2012. Second, we will make significant improvements to the BioLogos website: 1) We will create a resource center with multimedia content to meet the unique needs of various groups such as pastors, teachers, parents, and students. 2) Through increased moderation of our blog comments, we will ensure that our website remains a place where people can gather to respectfully dialogue about topics of interest and relevance to science and evangelical Christianity. 3) We will better articulate our core beliefs and values to maximize our trustworthiness among Evangelicals.

What a pathetic waste of money, yet Templeton folks continue to tell me that I have repeatedly misunderstood the Foundation’s aims. I don’t think so. Seriously, nearly two million bucks to hold useless workshops and improve the BioLogos website—the site of an organization that, so far as I can tell, hasn’t come close to its goal of converting evangelical Christians to accepting evolution? Instead, BioLogos itself is moving toward evangelical Christianity, engaging in apologetics like trying to harmonize the Biblical Adam and Eve with science’s conclusion that they didn’t exist.

But I digress—and fulminate. What we have now are the fruits of that big grant, touted by Templeton as an “Evolution and Faith in Harmony at BioLogos Conference” in Grand Rapids, Michigan from June 30 to July 2 (see also the announcement at the BioLogos page). I don’t know how much money Templeton wasted on this conference, but you can see the results at the links.

The telling but unsurprising thing about this conference is that it was touted as addressing a contentious and unresolved question—whether there’s conflict between religion and biology—but then choosing (as far as I can tell) only speakers who said “No–NO CONFLICT!” In other words, the conference was an expensive exercise in confirmation bias. I sure wasn’t invited, no were any of the many folks who do see conflict between faith and evolution (creationism, of course, is the most obvious example of the conflict). The conference’s outcome was predetermined.

Here’s how Templeton poses the question:

Are the biological sciences and religion in perpetual conflict with one another? Not necessarily, some believe, although the question remains a challenging one.

“Some believe” (the others weren’t invited to the meeting. And the question apparently wasn’t too challenging for Templeton, for the conference’s outcome was a unanimous affirmation of comity between faith and science:

The conference was a powerful demonstration of the idea that science and faith can indeed enrich each other. Its appeal went far beyond the world of academic science and religion with the apparent diversity of attendees, including scientists, pastors, teachers, students, and laypeople—all eager to learn about the harmony between the two areas. Many of the talks and presentations from the conference are now available online.

Note: the conference was not a discussion but a “demonstration”. The results were rigged beforehand. I despise this sort of pre-loaded result, for it’s intellectually dishonest. I can’t find a single speaker or talk that even whispers at possible irreconcilable aspects of finding stuff out via science versus gaining “knowledge” from religion. More:

Other speakers considered issues from the doctrine of original sin to the extraordinarily uncommon nature of human beings. Breakout sessions, recordings of which are also online, extended discussions to matters from divine action and human origins to education and church life.

You can find the list of speakers here, and you can see videos of the plenary speakers here.  Sadly, the only pure science talk, that of Mary Schweitzer, a paleontologist who’s found soft tissue remnants in dinosaur bones, is missing.

O! What a wonderful and mutually supportive display of harmony between rationality and superstition! (My emphasis below):

The organizers of the conference were delighted at the range of interests and backgrounds of attendees. Over a third were scholars and scientists; a significant portion were teachers; others were pastors. Disciplines represented included biblical studies and theology, paleontology and geology, biology and sociology. Many reported finding new ways of integrating their thinking about science and religion. One individual said, “Every speaker helped me to understand things better, to consider new ideas and prompt new questions.” “I am thrilled at what I heard and eager to learn more,” declared another.

All in all, it was clear that people of faith can engage with contemporary science and discover that it informs and deepens their faith. There exists a profound hunger for more learning about evolution. The conference demonstrated this truth: evolutionary science and biblical faith can live together in productive harmony.

Yes, you heard it: the conference demonstrated a truth. But is it really a truth? For some people, yes, though those people are suffering from cerebral compartmentalization of incompatible ways of apprehending truth. But not a single “incompatibilist” showed up, and I don’t see any young-earth creationists, either. And even Mary Schweitzer, interviewed by BioLogos in 2014, professes a harmony between her work and her Christianity:

I think the thing that surprised me most about that class [a class on dinosaurs taught by Jack Horner] was that I had no idea, coming from a conservative Christian background, that scientists are not all trying to disprove God in whatever way they can. What we were not told growing up is that there’s a lot of very rigorous, hard science that allows us to interpret the lives of organisms we’ve never seen—and knowing this made me rethink a few things, because I know God and God is not a deceiver. If you step back a little bit and let God be God I don’t think there’s any contradiction at all between the Bible and what we see in nature. He is under no obligation to meet our expectations. He is bigger than that.

. . . I don’t feel I don’t feel that I’m discrediting God with the work I’m doing, I think I am honoring him with the abilities he’s given me.

One of the churches I go to is very conservative—But the pastor and I have discussed what I do, and we have agreed to disagree on some things. I think that’s the appropriate attitude to have—after all, God is the only one who knows for sure—he is the only one who was there.

I go to church because I want to learn and be held accountable. I want to learn more and more about what the Bible teaches, and in a lot of progressive churches you don’t get that as much—you get politics, building projects, etc. Everyone has to figure out what they need and why they go to church. The hunger in me which is fed in the churches I go to has to do with the fact that they preach right out of the Bible, and I need that. I guess I don’t go to church to hear political views and hear about how they need money—I go to hear about God.

Is there any chance that Schweitzer even mentioned any disharmony between science and religion? I wouldn’t bet on it. So much for the “challenging question”! It seems to have been resolved quite easily—simply by stacking the conference with speakers on only the accommodationist side of the issue.

Templeton, get back to me when you’ve really changed your game plan. I don’t think I’ve misunderstood your aims.

Readers’ wildlife photographs

August 21, 2015 • 7:30 am

We have a diversity of fauna (and flora) today. We’ll begin with a lovely photograph by Stephen Barnard: a honeybee (Apis sp.) in flight over a Rocky Mountain bee plant (Cleome serrulata):

Barnard Bee

Reader Leo Glenn, who identifies himself as “the staff of Baxter and Gremlin”, has a caterpillar:

As you just posted a reader’s (Matthew Rave) wildlife photo of a Giant Leopard Moth [Hypercompe scribonia], I thought your readers might like to see what the caterpillar looks like. We don’t see many of the moths, but the caterpillars are frequent visitors on our property in western Pa., in the late summer and early fall. They are magnificent creatures.

Leo Glenn

We don’t often get underwater photographs, yet the sea is teeming with great species. Reader Jeff Gawthorpe sent a selection of pictures taken by him and his friends, including two mimics:

I’ve attached some of the photos from my trip last year to the Red Sea. They were all taken in or around Makadi bay near Hurghada in Egypt and all during the first week or two of November last year. It’s a great time to visit the area because just as the weather is getting greyer and colder here in Yorkshire, it’s still 30 Celsius over there with sea temperatures hovering between 26 and 27! I’ve been three times in the last few years and will hopefully be going again later in the year (international situation permitting). As you can see, the abundance and variety of marine life in the area is amazing. You’ll notice from the lighting that the sun is quite low in some photos as we tend to snorkel at sunrise when the nocturnal animals are still lurking around the reefs before disappearing into their hiding places when the sun gets up.  By the way I can’t claim exclusivity as the photographer here – the pictures are a group effort between myself and my friends Ania and Konrad.

This first one is a houndfish (Tylosurus crocodilus). We used to joke about how vain this fish was because it was in the same place every single morning being pampered by bluestreak cleaner wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus). You (and many readers) will no doubt be aware that this species has a Batesian mimic called Aspidontus taeniatus [JAC: the “false cleaner fish”] which makes use of its disguise to take sneaky bites from unsuspecting fish hoping to be groomed.

Houndfish

This next one is a spot-fin porcupine fish (Diodon hystrix), it’s pretty unusual to see these out in open water as they are usually quite shy, preferring to lurk under ledges. They are extremely cute in real life. This one was pretty big – over 60 cm.

ppine

Here is another member of the porcupine fish family (Diodontidae), and as you can see it has a similar appearance to the Diodon hystrix with those spines and big eyes. This is a yellowspotted burrfish (Cyclihthys spilostylus) and, like other porcupine fish, they like to hide under ledges during the day.

burrfish

To my great disappointment I was not present when this picture was taken. I would have loved to swim with this pod of dolphins but I guess that will just have to wait till next time. Apparently they stayed around for about 5 minutes before swimming away. I think these are common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), but I’m not sure – I stand to be corrected.

dolphins

And here we have what I think is a black-headed heron (Ardea melanocephala) but not being an expert I might be wrong here. The bird is up early looking for breakfast before the sun gets high and drives the fish from the shallows. As far as I saw it went hungry on that particular morning.

heron

The striped mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) [JAC: the binomial name is for the Indian mackerel, perhaps not the same species?] is another species that you never see once the sun has been up more than a short while. They can actually be quite intimidating when a large school swim towards you with open mouths. However they are filter feeders straining zooplankton as they swim, so are not going to bite! They’re not bothered in the slightest by a human’s presence, swimming really close as they go past.

mac

I don’t actually know what this once belonged to but it’s absolutely beautiful. Maybe a reader could identify it?

shell

Here are a couple of great examples of camouflage. First is a Red Sea Moses sole (Pardachirus marmoratus) doing its best to blend into the sea bed. This one stands out as it lies perpendicular to the ridges of sand on the sea bed but usually they are very difficult to spot.

sole

And here is a reef octopus (Octopus cyanea) doing its best to look like the surrounding coral. The octopus is one of the critters that you need to be up early to see – any later than 45 minutes past sunrise and they have all disappeared back to their daytime hiding places.

octopus

At first glance this looks like someone dropped a bag of tortilla chips over the sea bed but it’s actually an example of triangle turbinweed (Turbinaria decurrens) which is endemic to the Red Sea.

turbinweed

Oh and a bonus pic – this was actually taken without my knowledge and was not posed, I didn’t even know about it till we got back to the UK. I was re-reading WEIT while I was there and had been caught having a snooze while shielding my eyes from the light. I know the subject isn’t wildlife exactly—but feel free to post it if you like!

I do feel free to post it, of course! Why pass up a chance for self-promotion?

homo sapiens

Friday: Hili dialogue (and Leon lagniappe)

August 21, 2015 • 6:20 am

“Tis the end of the week at last, and in Chicago the weather has cooled—so much so that a jacket was needed yesterday morning.  Fall is on the way. Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili and Andrzej are wrestling, and Her Highness smells victory:

Hili: Do you give up?
A: No.
Hili: You were asking for it.

P1030266

In Polish:’
Hili: Poddajesz się?
Ja: Nie.
Hili: Sam tego chciałeś.
*******
And, in the mountains of Poland, Leon is on the last day of his hiking vacation. Like Hili, he’s a bit of a showoff, but this time on the barre:
Leon: I’m practicing like a real prima ballerina.
11903790_1009076685779599_2383765523714397949_n
Look at how dark a tabby he is!