Leon’s mountain adventure: Part six

February 23, 2015 • 4:10 pm

Leon continues to enjoy his hiking adventure in the mountains of Poland.(I’m now a day behind; these pictures are from yesterday, and today’s photos will be up tomorrow. Then Leon and his staff go home.)

I’m told that Leon continues his friendship with the lovely innkeeper’s cat, Balbina, although she ate all the food in Leon’s bowl! Fortunately, there was plenty of extra food so Leon didn’t go hungry. Balbina also tried to fit into Leon’s basket, but, being a cat of some pulchritude, she was too big for it, so Leon retained his bed. Balbina apparently has a son as well, who is shy (see below).

Elzbieta sent five pictures of Leon’s doings today, and one monologue:

Leon: We were looking for the Spring and I picked a hole.

10987489_915041175183151_2103089631064046646_n
How did he get in there? And why?

11014709_915041575183111_3748529256289354398_n

11006376_915040811849854_5100015018709439954_n

11000592_915040385183230_2533812969688611167_n

10991414_915039931849942_4627455791662668535_n

Balbina (right) and her son:

Balbina and son

 

As lagniappe, here’s a Polish cat cartoon posted on Elzbieta’s Facebook page, which I asked Malgorzata to translate into English:

Screen Shot 2015-02-23 at 12.13.37 PM

In the left panel the man says: “There is no meaning to life”

On the right panel the cat says: “but there is a little cat”.
I love the “Mru”.

 

Adam Gopnik: Why we should quiz politicians about their views of evolution

February 23, 2015 • 2:00 pm

In honor of Darwin Day, writer Adam Gopnik penned a piece at the Nov. 19 Daily Comment site at the New Yorker: “The evolution catechism.” It’s about why politicians should be asked what they think about evolution: that is, whether they accept it or not. Some writers have argued that that question should be off limits, for who cares if a politician accepts evolution so long as they accept other scientific findings of greater import for both humans and the planet—global warming, vaccination, and so on? Gopnik’s reply is succinct:

But the notion that the evolution question was unfair, or irrelevant, or simply a “sorting” device designed to expose a politician as belonging to one cultural club or another, is finally ridiculous. For the real point is that evolution is not, like the Great Pumpkin, something one can or cannot “believe” in. It just is—a fact certain, the strongest and most resilient explanation of the development of life on Earth that there has ever been. And yet, as the Times noted, after Walker’s London catechism, “none of the likely Republican candidates for 2016 seem to be convinced.”

. . . What the question means, and why it matters, is plain: Do you have the courage to embrace an inarguable and obvious truth when it might cost you something to do so? A politician who fails this test is not high-minded or neutral; he or she is just craven, and shouldn’t be trusted with power. This catechism’s purpose—perhaps unfair in its form, but essential in its signal—is to ask, Do you stand with reason and evidence sufficiently to anger people among your allies who don’t?

. . . To oppose Darwinian biology is not to announce yourself neutral or disinterested or even uninterested. It is to announce yourself against the discoveries of science, or so frightened of those who are that you can be swayed from answering honestly.

Indeed.  Gopnik falls down just a wee bit, though, when he has to explain why being against evolution is dangerous for a politician, for Gopnik sees the dangers in purely practical terms:

Evolutionary science is not abstract—evaluating reports of a “superbug” in Los Angeles, wrought immune by natural selection to antibiotics, means applying Darwinian principles as they go about their often scary work. The institutions of Big Science certainly have interests like any other, and the bureaucracies of science have orthodoxies of their own. But scientific reasoning is the basic way human beings achieve knowledge about their world.

The implication here is that politicians who reject evolution will, if elected, enact other policies that are both anti-science and have more dangerous consequences than those of, say, promoting or accepting creationism. And that’s not quite as clear, for there are many people who are perfectly happy to accept almost everything about science except evolution. After all, in the public eye, evolution has uncomfortable implications about humanity that most other sciences don’t share. Many creationists, however, are perfectly happy to get vaccinated.

So the question is this: does an opposition to evolution give you an idea of how a politician stands on other scientific issues of import? In general the answer is “yes”: in the absence of any other knowledge, opposition to evolution is statistically correlated with opposition to issues like global warming and scientific medicine, though not to others like the theory of relativity. The correlation, of course, is mediated through factors like religion and Republicanism, which nuture or support anti-science attitudes.

But in the case of a given politician, if you want to know his or her attitudes about important issues, ask them about those issues. Don’t just ask about evolution and blithely assume that someone who hedges about it will be anti-science in general. Ask about global warming. Ask about vaccination. Ask about their support for funding science.

And of course if we reject politicans because of the evolution litmus test, the test that Gopnik proposes:

Do you have the courage to embrace an inarguable and obvious truth when it might cost you something to do so? A politician who fails this test is not high-minded or neutral; he or she is just craven, and shouldn’t be trusted with power.

then every politician fails, because every politician is craven on one issue or another. Can you name one who isn’t? Obama, I believe, is craven about his belief in God, though I can’t prove it (that’s where evolution has the advantage, since we know the truth). Any politician who takes a stand that he or she doesn’t fully endorse, in order to garner votes, fails the Gopnik Test.

Still, I wouldn’t vote for a person who opposes evolution, for it does tell us unequivocally that someone can reject a palpable fact to get votes—a fact that I happen to have been deeply involved with for my whole career. To a scientist, that’s an unforgivable character flaw. If Hillary Clinton waffled on evolution (she won’t), I wouldn’t vote for her, either.

In the rest of the article, Gopnik trots out the evidence for evolution, which, as well all know, is multifarious and overwhelming.  His description is quite good, and I have only a few quibbles. He seems to equate modern evolutionary theory with natural selection; he says that it’s controversial whether “everything we find in an animal is an adaptation,” or could be the results of genetic drift and accident (that’s not controversial; a lot of features in animal—and plant—genomes are clearly either the result of genetic drift or historical contingencies, like the presence of inactivated, ancient viral DNA; and he adduces only evidence from human fossils and DNA, neglecting all the evidence from biogeography, development, vestigial organs and genes, and so on. And I must insist that “flatworm” is one word, not two.

But these are simply the plaints of a captious biologist. In general, Gopnik’s description of evolution is excellent, as he’s one of the few non-science writers who seems to thoroughly grasp the concept and the issues it raises. He did, after all, write Angels and Ages, a nice book about the conjunction of Lincoln and Darwin (based on their simultaneous days of birth), which, as I recall, I blurbed. And it’s nice to see such an uncompromising defense of “Darwinism” (Gopnik doesn’t reject the term) in a mainstream magazine.

In which I help deconvert someone, and on what works

February 23, 2015 • 12:15 pm

I’ve always said that the definition of “success” in mentoring graduate students is “producing a student who can replace you.” And though I’ve had very few students, I’ve replaced myself in that sense at least three times, so I’m quite happy.

And I consider the definition of “success” as an anti-theist to be “turning at least one person away from the delusions of faith and towards the virtues of reason.”  After all, if theists can boast about bringing people to Jesus, why can’t atheists take pride in helping people go in the reverse direction?

Now I can’t claim full credit for doing that to any one person, but I claim partial credit for helping quite a few—or so they tell me. And I’ll add those partial successes up to assert that N > 1.

The latest partial convert is Bruce Gerencser, a former Christian minister, who explains on his website what led to his leaving the church. As is nearly always true for the deconversion of ministers (or anyone else, for that matter), it is a long, tortuous, and complex process involving many inputs. In his post, “Why I stopped believing,” he lists some of them:

I decided I would go back to the Bible, study it again, and determine what it was I REALLY believed. During this time, I began reading books by authors such as Robert Wright,  Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman, These three authors, along with several others,  attacked the foundation of my Evangelical belief in the inerrant, inspired word of God. Their assault on this foundation brought my Evangelical house tumbling down. I desperately tried to find some semblance of the Christianity I once believed, but I came to realize that my faith was gone.

I tried, for a time, to convince myself that I could find some sort of Christianity that would work for me. Polly and I visited numerous liberal or progressive Christian churches, but I found that these expressions of faith would not do for me. My faith was gone. Later, Polly [his wife] would come to the same conclusion.

I turned to the internet to find help. I came upon sites like exchristian.net and Debunking Christianity. I found these sites to be quite helpful as I tried to make sense of what was going on in my life. I began reading the books of authors like John Loftus, Hector Avalos, Robert M. Price, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins.

The four books that made the biggest impression on me were:

But read Gerenser’s whole piece (it’s short), because he traces the roots of his apostasy back to the very virtues instilled in him by his religious parents, including a love of reading and having the courage of one’s convictions.

The other point this makes is that it’s better, if you want to advance reason, to write and publish (if you have that privilege) rather than to give lectures and have debates. That is because in the quietude of authorship, you can polish and fully express your views, and people can read them at leisure and compare them with contrary views. In a public talk, I often find that the audience comprises people who are already on my side, and have come out of curiosity or to seek affirmation. Those are both fine reasons, and, after all, we all need affirmation (except perhaps Christopher Hitchens!), but in truth I’d prefer a higher titer of opponents when I speak. But again, I prefer to write, and that’s why I wrote The Albatross (soon to be available in fine bookstores everywhere).

Debates, I think, are almost useless at changing people’s minds—at least about evolution. It’s an exercise in rhetoric, the atmosphere is not right for reasoned consideration of arguments, and one can’t go into the evidence very deeply in half an hour or so. And that’s why I wrote Why Evolution is True (already available at fine bookstores everywhere). I’ve had only one debate with a creationist in my life: Hugh Ross, an old-earth creationist. That was in front of the annual meeting of the Alaska Bar Association (don’t ask me why they wanted me, but I got a free trip to a great state), and I have no idea how the audience reacted.

The only debates that might change peoples’ minds, I think, are when atheists debate theists about religion. There the issues don’t involve much consideration of evidence, because there simply isn’t any for God. And it’s not science, so people are less likely to get confused about complex issues. All you have to do is say, “What is your evidence?”, and the theist is stymied, or at least will disgorge a torrent of theobabble that won’t fool anyone who’s savvy or not already in the asylum. I did such a debate once—with John Haught in Kentucky—and was fairly successful at whomping him, though I don’t know how many people’s minds were changed. I had another debate with a Lutheran theologian in Charleston, South Carolina, but it was about the compatibility of religion and science, and the format was not optimal for allowing a real clash of ideas.

Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens seem to be quite good at changing people’s minds in debates, or so I remember from votes taken before and after their debates about religion. But how knows how long people remain swayed after the heat of the moment?

What about one-on-one discussions? That’s the procedure that atheist philosopher Peter Boghossian promoted in his popular book A Manual for Creating Atheists, and the evidence is that his “street epistemology” method does indeed make converts (or de-converts). But that’s a lot of work, and also requires a personality that can handle one-on-one confrontations, which I’m not particularly comfortable with.

For me, then, writing is the optimal way to change minds.  And that is why the Internet has been so valuable as a way to promote reason. I won’t say it always does that—look at how Jenny McCarthy, for example, attributes her anti-vaxer opinions to the ‘University of Google”—but it allows people to think about stuff in privacy of their homes, without distraction. If reason can’t work in such a venue, we have no hope.

 

h/t: Amy

Reader’s comment of the day

February 23, 2015 • 12:12 pm

This just came in as a newbie’s comment; of course I binned it but will reproduce it here. It’s from one “Bob Hutton,” the name he/she used; Hutton attempted to add this comment to the thread about “Some good news: Muslims protect a synagogue.”

While I would never condone hatred of Jews or Muslims it has to be said that both Islam and Judaism are wrong; this is because they do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Oy gewalt! He doesn’t condone hatred but almost certainly believes that Muslims and Jews face eternal immolation, BECAUSE THEY’RE WRONG. And it has to be said!

How can such people exist in this world? I need some jokes to dispel the Black Dog* created by such comments. Humor below, please.

____

*Not Cyrus

Charlie Brooker mocks religion on Channel 4

February 23, 2015 • 10:45 am

Matthew Cobb, who introduced me to the work of Charlie Brooker, describes the man as “a long-standing scabrous British satirist who has an occasional column in the Guardian.” We’ve already encountered one of his associates, the adorable Philomena Cunk, who presents “Moments of Wonder” as part of Brooker’s BBC show Newswipe. (We’ll see more of Philomena later today.)

But here’s a clip from Brooker’s show You Have Been Watching on Channel 4. While that’s a commerical channel, it’s also partly funded by the British Government.  So when you watch the anti-religious clip below, which appeared six years ago on that channel, think about whether it could appear even now on American government-supported stations, either radio or television. Note too that the Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron “Argument from Bananas” also appears, and the audience finds it hilarious.

I wasn’t aware that there was such a series as Bibleman, which looks like a spoof, but apparently it was for real and played in the US from 2003 to 2011. On that basis I formulate Coyne’s Second Law: “Any sufficiently ludicrous manifestation of religion is indistinguishable from satire.” (I believe this is a subclass of Poe’s Law.)

One advantage that the UK has over the US is that, because of the nation’s smaller degree of religiosity, UK comedians can take the mickey out of religion much more strongly than can American comedians. Could you hear this on U.S. television?:

Brooker:  “. . . and when I say God is a psychotic bastard, I want to make it clear I mean all gods except Allah.”

Yes, George Carlin said stuff like that, but he did it in clubs and private shows, not on national television. Bill Maher does make fun of faith, but late at night and not on one of the three major channels. Perhaps I’ll live to see the day that this kind of satire will be widely shown in my country, but I doubt it.

Was the Muslim “ring of peace” around the Oslo synagogue exaggerated?

February 23, 2015 • 9:30 am

It’s with a heavy heart that I report this, for I so wanted it to be true, and now it might not be.

On Saturday I reported, based on many media accounts, that more than 1000 Norwegian Muslims formed a “ring of peace” around an Oslo synagogue on that day—the Sabbath. That was heartening: one bright spot in a world of inter-faith enmity.

Now reader Larry has called my attention to a piece at the site Winds of Jihad, which claims that the story was grossly exaggerated: that only about 20 Muslims showed up, not nearly enough to encircle the synagogue:

According to a local eyewitness, only about 20 or so Muslims formed the “ring of peace” around the Oslo synagogue. In fact, pictures from multiple angles show that there wasn’t enough people to form a ring, so the locals instead formed a horizontal line in front of the synagogue.

A local news outlet explained how the media got to its “1,300 Muslims” number. “According to police, there were 1300 persons present in the event. Very many of them ethnic Norwegians,” read a translated report from Osloby.

Further, the site reports another source claiming that the Muslim organizer of the event, Ali Chishti, might really be an anti-Semite who has actually said, “I hate Jews” and called for their extermination.

The site also notes this and gives a photo:

AFP reports almost identically, “More than 1,000 people formed a ‘ring of peace’ Saturday outside Oslo’s main synagogue at the initiative of a group of young Muslims. The newswire agency has no excuse for the false report, as it had a photographer taking shots of the “ring” at the scene–and one shows a man who appears to be at the end of the line of hand-holders, with his left hand in his pocket.

Here’s that photo:

4663232f-ae3c-40a3-9f59-17134cca5745

Well, perhaps at least 20 Muslims (and many Norwegians) had the right motivations, but now we have to consider the possibility that this might have been political theater: a way for Muslims defuse possible Norwegian animus or suspicion of them or their faith. I have to admit that I was a bit put off by what was chanted at the demonstration—”No to anti-Semitism, no to Islamophobia”—as it diverted attention from the object of the demonstration to bigotry against Muslims (if not criticism of Islam), but I let that pass and didn’t mention it. Now it may actually reflect what the demonstration was really about.

I felt that I had to give this report, even though both of the links above come from what appear to be ideologically-driven websites. Perhaps a Norwegian reader can get the facts, or someone find out the skinny on the organizers. It would be sad if this one show of amity turned out to be not only exaggerated, but organized by an anti-Semite, perhaps for purposes other than those stated.

Readers’ wildlife photos

February 23, 2015 • 7:35 am

Actually, today we have mostly travel photos from reader Ken Phelps. I’m still going to concentrate on wildlife in the future (and perhaps the occasional landscape), but because these scenes will soon be gone when Cuba turns into another Aruba, I thought I’d put them up to document an endangered culture. The cars are endangered, too: there are many old U.S. cars from the fifties that are kept running, because they can’t afford (or get) new ones. That too will change.

Ken’s notes are indented:

A couple fine examples of Homo sapiens, captured in Havana. Shot from the hip with 50mm f1.2. Triggered with wireless remote in my other hand as I walked by.

image
This old guy was just the gentlest looking soul. I had a 70-200 on a tripod shooting cars in Havana Centro and he was watching from across the street. I gestured to ask his permission to shoot and he nodded OK. As soon as I had taken the image I walked across and showed him. He was extremely pleased and seemed curious about me. Being a unilingual churl, I hand-waved a bit and then brought out my phone where I keep a file of scenic B.C. images for such occasions. This has proved to be an extremely good ice-breaker and substitute for language on many occasions.
image-1

Bonus shot of a car in Havana. 24mm tilt-shift lens to flatten focal plane and give increased depth of field without stopping down the aperture too much.

image-2
image-3
Other scenes from Havana:
image
image-1
image-2
image-3
I wish I could see this country before it becomes an American vacation paradise, but the chances of that are small. One can still go there as part of an official tour, usually of the academic/cultural sort, or one can go illegally, but I’d like to go legally on my own, now, and perhaps do something like teach evolution or give lectures in the universities to make a contribution (although I don’t speak Spanish).
And to return to nature, here are two of Ken’s landscape photos from Vancouver Island, British Columbia:
This is a small slough along the Nanaimo River between Second and Fourth lakes. The imaginatively named lakes are in series along the river, except for Third lake, which is small and of no account:
ATT00016
ATT00015