River boarder rescues squirrel trapped in a river

November 5, 2014 • 3:32 pm

From The Dodo we have a heartwarming story about the good that resides in some humans (not Republicans, though).

Thomas Paterson tells news agency Caters that he was out enjoying a day of whitewater boarding in Ottawa, Canada when he spotted the squirrel perched atop a rock protruding from the water midstream. Seeing no easy way for the little creature to cross the river on his own, Paterson stepped in to help.

The squirrel wasn’t eager for assistance at first, leaping into the water to get away from what he might have assumed was a predator, but he was quickly pulled under by the strong current. Fortunately, Paterson was there to pluck him from the water, after which the soaked squirrel seemed to understand his rescuer’s good intentions.

“Once he was on my board he realised what I was doing and just chilled and enjoyed the free ride,” says Paterson, who captured the entire rescue on his GoPro camera.

And of course we have this caveat (believe me, it’s necessary, as I was bitten by a baby squirrel about thirty years ago, and it was one of the most painful experiences I’ve ever had:

The Wildlife Rescue League advises caution when rescuing squirrels. When panicked, the animals are prone to bite, so in situations where they need to be picked up, it is best to wear gloves if possible.

h/t: Joyce

“True facts” about Jesus

November 5, 2014 • 1:35 pm

I wish ZeFrank would do a video on this. . .

Four days ago, I posted about an NPR piece by Tonia Lombrozo, and its source, a paper by Neil van Leuuwen, which both maintained that the “truths” believed by religious people differ profoundly in character from the “truths” that scientists or laypeople hold about the world. As van Leuuwen said (p. 706 of his paper), “Religious attitudes are not factual beliefs,” and on the next page claims that the factual belief of scientists that “the world is not billions of years old” differs from the “religious credence” or creationists that “the world is not billions of years old.”

The differences, he says, lie (among other things) in the fact that believers don’t really think stuff like that, which they consider only “fictional imaginings” that help hold their group together. Further (and this is true), religious credences (aka religious “truths”) are not easily dispelled by evidence.

With the exception of religious truth’s immunity from disproof, Van Leuuwen’s and Lombrozo’s statements are, I think, largely nonsense. Of course believers think that many creedal assertions are true in a factual sense. Creationists believe the world really is young, and that God created things ex nihilo. Many Christians don’t see it as a fictional imagining that Jesus was crucified and resurrected. And Muslims certainly don’t see it as a fictional imagining that God dictated the Qur’an to Muhammad.

For proof you can look at statements of what people believe, at the tenacity and truth value they give them, and so on. And really, do creationists want their views taught in public schools because they think that creationism is a “fictional imagining”? Why are they still looking for Noah’s Ark, or trying to document miracles? Why do people flock to Lourdes: because a fictionally imagined God will give them a fictitious cure?

If you need any more proof, read this piece from the On Faith website: “10 things I wish everyone knew about Jesus,” by the Jesuit James Martin. And see if you think Martin realizes that these things he wishes we all knew are only “fictional imaginings”:

  1. Jesus was poor.
  2. Jesus saw income disparities at first hand, and condemned them.
  3. Jesus had close friends.
  4. Jesus instructed his disciples not to judge.
  5. Jesus didn’t say anything about gays and lesbians.
  6. Jesus always reached out to those on the margins.
  7. Jesus can’t be tamed.
  8. Jesus really did perform miracles.
  9. Jesus struggled, even in prayer, and
  10. Jesus rose from the dead.

Of course, the “evidence” for all of these claims resides solely in the New Testament, yet the beliefs aren’t fictional imaginings by any stretch. Martin really, really sees these things as true in the same way that we see the details of Abraham Lincoln’s life as true.

And these aren’t the kinds of statements that one sees as mere “fictional imaginings” (they’re Martin’s):

Jesus’ ability to perform miracles was never in doubt in the Gospels. Even his detractors take note of his miracles, as when they critique him for healing on the Sabbath. The question posed by people of his time is not whether Jesus can do miracles, but rather the source of his power. The statement that Jesus was seen as a miracle worker in his time has as much reliability as almost any other statement we can make about him.

Jesus really and truly rose to the dead. For me, that’s the most important thing to know about Jesus.

We tend to think of Jesus as interacting with his apostles, disciples, and followers. But he also had friends. The Gospels describe, for example, Jesus’s relaxing at the house of his good friends Mary and Martha, who lived in Bethany, just outside of Jerusalem.

Van Leeuwen’s claims show how far up his fundament a philosopher can go to prove an insupportable thesis. Ask a diehard Southern Baptist whether his view of Jesus is only a fictional imagining, or a fundamentalist Muslim whether he saw Muhammad as a made-up character (run quickly after you ask the second question!).  I could give lots of evidence beyond this article, but it’s superfluous. If you want more, see my Faith vs. Fact book coming out in May.

h/t: Diane G

 

U.S. federal court declares secular humanism a religion

November 5, 2014 • 10:58 am

Well, I have mixed feelings about this one. According to ThinkProgress, which considers this a “major win” for atheists, a federal court in Oregon has ruled that secular humanism is a religion. The decision came in the case of a federal prisoner, Jason Holden, who wanted the right to have a secular humanism study group in his prison, similar to other religious study groups. This case gave him that right.

Federal Judge Ancer L. Haggerty ruled, in the case of American Humanist Association v. United States (his decision in full is here), that secular humanism is a “nontheistic religion” that is entitled to First Amendment Protection. There are other issues as well—and you can see them if you want to wade through the long decision—but this is the gist:

This year, the Seventh Circuit laid it out even more clearly, when making accommodations in prisons, states must treat atheism as favorably as theistic religion, and that, [w]hat is true of atheism is equally true of humanism, and as true in daily life as in prison. Although this decision was issued after the alleged violations occurred, the court does not find the Seventh Circuit’s opinion to be revelatory or a departure from existing doctrine. Rather, the court simply summarized the law as it is commonly understood. Thus, the court finds that the right was clearly established. . . 
 and
The court finds that Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes. . .
What I don’t like about the decision (bad stuff first) is that it gives ammunition to those theists who argue that atheism, humanism, or any other non-theistic movement is “religious”, so “we’re just as bad as they are.” (Religious people should be very careful in making these tu quoque arguments, since they implicitly denigrate religion!) Secular humanism is not a religion, at least if you take the definition given in my go-to source, the Oxford English Dictionary:

Religion. Action or conduct indicating belief in, obedience to, and reverence for a god, gods, or similar superhuman power; the performance of religious rites or observances.

We have no gods.

But, in the main, I think this is a good decision, for it helps level the playing field between belief and nonbelief. For example, it means that secular humanist “preachers” should be have their housing allowances declared tax-free, as is the case now for “regular” preachers. (Of course, the right thing to do is eliminate such exemptions for everyone, something the Freedom from Religion Foundation is trying to do.) But by eroding the unwarranted preference for and authority of traditional theistic religions, I suppose the decision is a good one, and I agree with Greg Epstein:

“I really don’t care if Humanism is called a religion or not,” Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University and author of Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe, told ThinkProgress. “But if you’re going to give special rights to religions, then you have to give them to Humanism as well, and I think that’s what this case was about.”

 

h/t: Barry

The Vatican calls Brittany Maynard’s decision to end her life “reprehensible”

November 5, 2014 • 8:29 am

Gad, the Catholic Church is dreadful: the most immoral and perfidious religion on Earth besides Islam. It just can’t stop sticking its nose into people’s private lives, and visiting oppression on gays, women, and the many children who have been the victim of the church’s sexual predators. My only consolation is that some day the Church will dwindle to a useless remnant like the human appendix. And it makes me happy that the Vatican knows this, and is desperate to stop its slide into irrelevance.

Yet the off-putting nonsense that spews from the Vatican continues to amaze me. The latest is their pronouncement on—or rather condemnation of—the assisted dying of Brittany Maynard.

Two days ago I wrote about the heartbreaking but courageous decision of Maynard, a 29-year-old American with terminal brain cancer, to end her life by taking barbiturates. She did this to forestall the inevitable but gruesome death that comes from glioblastoma. She was bright, eloquent, and had everything to live for had not an errant tumor invaded her brain. In the end, she had as good a death as one might expect from her illness. Brittany was a role model for everyone in an end-of-life situation

Except, of course, for the Catholic Church.

As The Independent reports, the Vatican is carping about Maynard’s decision. The church, after all, regards suicide, whatever the situation, as sinful, equivalent to murder. Here’s an excerpt from its Declaration on Euthanasia:

Intentionally causing one’s own death, or suicide, is therefore equally as wrong as murder; such an action on the part of a person is to be considered as a rejection of God’s sovereignty and loving plan.

And a 1995 statement by John Paul II declared that those who assist in “euthanasia” can also be guilty of murder. In other words, Maynard and her doctor will go to hell (even though she, at least, wasn’t a Catholic):

I confirm that euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. . . Depending on the circumstances, this practice involves the malice proper to suicide or murder.

The Declaration on Euthanasia explains the twisted logic behind the conviction that God wants you to suffer right up to the end:

. . . According to Christian teaching, however, suffering, especially suffering during the last moments of life, has a special place in God’s saving plan; it is in fact a sharing in Christ’s passion and a union with the redeeming sacrifice which He offered in obedience to the Father’s will.

What hogwash: a doctrine, based on a fairy tale, that has caused innumerable people to suffer needlessly. Mother Teresa was the instantiation of this “suffering-is-holy” paradigm.

So, of course, here’s the Church’s reaction to Maynard’s sensible decision (from the Independent). The stupidity is embodied in the quote I’ve bolded:

The Vatican has condemned cancer patient Brittany Maynard’s decision to end her life, describing assisted suicide as an “absurdity”.

. . . the Vatican’s bioethics chief told the ANSA news agency that “dignity is something other than putting an end to one’s own life” and branded assisted suicide “reprehensible”.

Monsignor Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said: “This woman (took her own life) thinking she would die with dignity, but this is the error.

“Suicide is not a good thing, it is a bad thing because it is saying no to life and to everything it means with respect to our mission in the world and towards those around us.”

Father Carrasco de Paula cautioned that he was not judging individuals “but the gesture in and of itself should be condemned”.

In the case of Brittany Maynard, it was indeed saying “no” not to life, but life with intractable suffering—an existence no longer worth living.  And what, exactly, would have been her “mission” in the last few weeks of intractable pain? To re-enact the sufferings of Jesus? That, in fact, is the Vatican’s ridiculous answer.

There aren’t yet many readers’ comments, but most of them are supportive, like this one:

Screen Shot 2014-11-05 at 7.43.36 AM

But of course we also have the benighted, who can’t take the trouble to find out the facts without adding their two cents’ worth:

Screen Shot 2014-11-05 at 7.43.26 AM

h/t: Grania

Readers’ wildlife photos

November 5, 2014 • 6:56 am

I’m too dispirited to display a bunch of wildlife today, but I do my best. Reader Graham Ramsey sends some photos of Big Game taken by his daughter. The notes:

My daughter, Kate has recently returned from South Africa. She was on her gap year working at a residential child care unit.

Anyhow, she took some time out to experience the animals of that beautiful country and I’ve attached some of her pictures. They were taken on safari apart from the cheetah which was taken on one of these “Walk with cheetahs” affairs.

She said it purred exactly like our cat.

I needn’t identify these beasts, as you all know them.

elephant

 

hippo

 

lion

rhino

Why can’t I do this some day?

cheetah

The elections: We’re screwed

November 5, 2014 • 5:16 am

As my CNN bulletins kept coming in over email last night (I had no heart to watch the election results on television), my heart sank lower and lower. One by one, Republicans took Senate seats, House seats, and governorships. Democratic victories were rare. The only bright spot is that Oregon and Washington D.C. legalized marijuana, which will provide a palliative for sensible people who must endure the next two years (or even more) of gridlock and heartless conservatism.

Here’s today’s headline from the New York Times, and the depressing statistics below it. Republicans have not only gained control of the Senate, but expanded their hold on the House. Click on each to go to the story:

Screen Shot 2014-11-05 at 5.50.59 AM

Screen Shot 2014-11-05 at 5.50.43 AM

Read and weep:

Senate election results:
Screen Shot 2014-11-05 at 5.57.34 AM

 

House election results:

Screen Shot 2014-11-05 at 5.57.06 AM

The Democrats lost 13 seats in the House, which remains Republican, but also 7 seats in the Senate, which is now in Republican hands. With both houses of Congress controlled by Republicans, what we’ll see is gridlock until the 2016 elections. Republicans will be committed to overturning Obama’s health care bill and expanding tax advantages for the rich, and will do everything they can to derail Obama’s initiatives. They are a party not of progress—not even conservative progress (whatever that is)—but of obstruction. Their only platform is to make things harder for immigrants, women, and the poor.

Here’s what we have to look forward to:

  • Increasing restriction of abortion rights
  • No reform on immigration, or the kind of reform that restricts immigration, particularly of brown people
  • Repeated attempts to dismantle “Obamacare”
  • Expansion of financial advantages for the wealthy and increasing income inequality
  • The end of efforts to curb carbon emissions and global warming

And even if Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency in 2016, which I expect, many of these gains will remain. What that means is very little important legislation will be enacted for six years au minimum. 

This represented a vote against Obama by an electorate who votes on their own pocketbooks and not on principle.  I truly don’t understand the demonization of Obama. He’s gotten healthcare through, largely pulled our troops out of the Middle East (though he tends to waffle on foreign policy), and had sensible policies on immigration.  I can’t help but think that those Republicans disaffected by his victories, and the fact that he’s black, are striking back in a big way when they have the opportunity (if you think Obama’s race makes no difference, you’re living in Cloud Cuckooland). Obama, whatever you may think of him, had decent policies but was blocked by a truculent Republican faction in Congress.

I really do despise the Republic Party and all that it stands for. There’s nothing to look forward to in the next two, six, or even ten years—except for the people of Oregon and the District of Columbia, who now have the means to become impervious to politics.

Texas Tech students parade their knowledge

November 4, 2014 • 2:57 pm

Here a group of Texas Tech students (a decent school in Lubbock, Texas, birthplace of Buddy Holly) are asked five sets of questions:

1. Who won the Civil War?
2. Who is the Vice-President of the United States?
3. Who did we (the U.S.) gain our independence from? And in what year?
4. What (television) show is Snooki on?
5. Who is Brad Pitt married to? And who was he married to before that?

They got two of these groups of questions uniformly right and largely tanked on the rest. Guess which ones.  See the video below:

Now, instead of feeling superior, let’s wonder at an educational system in which students can’t answer the easiest questions about history and politics but know a lot about celebrities.

h/t: Merilee