A “light” lunch with Josh Ozersky

October 13, 2014 • 10:45 am

First, be aware that there is no such thing as a light lunch with Josh Ozersky. I knew this well, and though we were scheduled to tour the Cantonese restaurants of Chinatown at 2 p.m., I didn’t eat a bite before that.

Josh is a well known food critic, having written for New York Magazine, Time Magazine, and now Esquire, where he’s their food critic.  He also has a Ph.D. in American history and, importantly, is intensely interested in evolution. That provides a fantastic symbiosis, for he gets to ask me about evolution and I get to ask him about restaurants. And, like me, he’s an apostate Jew, very fond of BBQ. Our tour, then was, to concentrate on the BBQ of New York’s Chinatown. I was in Josh’s hands.

Our first stop was Sun Say Gai on Canal and Baxter, full of both Chinese and Westerners chowing down on barbecued pork, duck, and an assortment of steamed and baked buns. Our first order was half a barbecued duck and a large dumpling filled with pork, egg, and other stuff:

Food 1

The dumpling halved, lateral view:

Food 2

With the half duck (superb; I shall dine on the remnants now) we had a side order of bbq suckling pig, with incomparably luscious crispy skin:

Food 3

Then it was on to the Big Wong, a nearby restaurant which, says Josh, has the best ribs in Chinatown. We accompanied the ribs with an order of salt-and-pepper squid:

P1060679

The ribs—fantastic.

P1060680

Josh met an old friend on the street, who took a really nice photo of the two of us, but sadly his friend pressed the “record” button and now we have about two seconds of a movie that I can’t show here.

On the way to procure dessert, we went by a store called “Evolution,” which really is about natural-history artifacts. They have fossils as well as mounted beetles and butterflies (which sadden me), and a passel of the old natural-history posters I love. I was photographed next to what I’ll look like in 30 years.

P1060684

After all that BBQ, we both felt like some dessert, and gelato was on our minds. According to Josh, the best gelato in New York happened to be nearby (he seems to know where every good place to eat is in the city): Grom, on Bleecker Street. We both had a medium cup of gelato; his was dark chocolate, mine hazelnut, with whipped cream (we shared, as the combination is great). But we couldn’t resist an order of fig sorbetto as well, a fantastic concoction tasting exactly of fresh, ripe figs. Here is Mr. Ozersky before we dug in over intense discussions about the origin of life and the evolution of sex.

P1060690

 

~

A new view of hell: “Conditional immortality”

October 13, 2014 • 8:49 am

An article in the October 10 New York Times,Tormented in the afterlife, but not forever,” shows us how theology “progresses.” After thinking about the issue for a few millennia, some theologians have decided, based on rumination and judicious Biblical exegesis, that Hell might not consist of eternal immolation after all.  Maybe you just fry for a while and are then extinguished:

[Minister and Christian publisher Edward] Fudge’s inquiry into the nature of damnation resulted in his seminal 1982 book, “The Fire That Consumes,” in which he argued that the suffering of the wicked in hell is finite, that after a time their souls are extinguished. This view, called “conditional immortality” or sometimes the more macabre “annihilationism,” is in direct opposition to the traditional Christian view that suffering in hell lasts forever.

Conditional immortality is not new — it has been proposed by Christian thinkers almost from the beginning — but it is having a moment in the (gentle, non-fiery) sun. Several new scholarly volumes about conditional immortality have been, or are about to be, published. In July, leading proponents of the theory gathered in Houston for Rethinking Hell, a conference in honor of Mr. Fudge. The group that produced the conference maintains a website, rethinkinghell.com, dedicated to its theology.

And in 2012, Mr. Fudge achieved the ultimate mark of American celebrity, the biopic. “Hell and Mr. Fudge” can be streamed in its entirety on the web, allowing one to see Mr. Fudge — played by Mackenzie Astin, best known for his childhood role on the 1980s TV series “The Facts of Life” — first as a boy, then in his college days, courting his wife, and, as an adult, doing the research that led him to renounce the traditional view of hell.

Click on the screenshot below to see the hilarious trailer for “Hell and Mr. Fudge” (you’ll have to pay to see the whole thing):

Screen shot 2014-10-13 at 5.47.22 AM

What is obvious from this trailer, and the paragraph below, is that theological “progress”, at least in this case, came simply from pondering how unjust it seems for a loving God to torment someone forever for, say, homosexuality. And indeed it would be, so advocates of this Hell Lite simply decided that Hell wasn’t what it was cracked up to be.  And, of course, they could find Biblical support for their revised theology:

Advocates of conditional immortality say that their view reflects a common-sense reading of the Bible. They point to passages like Romans 6, where Paul says, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” The “eternal life” of the saved is contrasted with the ultimate “death” of the unsaved. And in the Book of Revelation, Jesus refers to a “second death,” which these theologians say means the dying-again of the resurrected wicked. Their final, irreversible punishment may involve torment, but it will come to an end.

There is no limit to how these people’s ability to hang their “truths” on the thinnest string of words in scripture.  And then, like good theologians, they pretend their view of Hell was actually the traditional one all along!:

“I don’t think the traditional view became popular among Christians until the late second and early third centuries,” said Christopher M. Date, a software engineer and independent theologian who helped organize the recent conference. He believes that conditionalism was the rule for early thinkers like the second-century bishop Irenaeus, who wrote that God “imparts continuance for ever and ever on those who are saved,” while denying that same continuance to the unsaved.

And it really take theologians two millennia to realize this:

If you stop and think about it, some conditionalists say, theirs is a compassionate theology. Which is the kinder God, they ask, one who lets sinners suffer forever, or one who gives them, say, a few decades of hellfire, then administers “capital punishment” (to use Mr. Date’s matter-of-fact term)?

Well, the most compassionate God is one who doesn’t let anybody burn in hell (imagine being licked for flames for only a few minutes, much less a few decades) and then wipes them out forever. Is that compassionate? No forgiveness, no chance for rehabilitation, just some fire and then extinction?

Any hell that includes fire is incompatible with a compassionate god. And could these “compassionate” theologians tell us exactly how long God lets the miscreants suffer before he snuffs out their souls?

The article continues by saying that many “compassionate” Christians aren’t buying this: for them, hell is, as always, forever. As the piece notes, “Many Christian churches and organizations have statements of faith, which members must sign, attesting to a belief in eternal torture for the unsaved.” Yep, that’s the way to settle issues.  If science were done like this, we’d all sign statements saying that everything in the Origin of Species was literally true.

What a contrast with science, where such disputes are settled either with evidence or, if evidence is lacking, a statement that “we don’t know the answer.” Christians, however, settle the issue based on whatever seems most congenial to them, or what comports with the kind of God they imagine. In other words, theology advances by “wish thinking”: in this case, the realization that maybe a good God wouldn’t sent people to hell forever. But maybe he would. For centuries theologians have thought that, and you can support the “eternal hell” view with scripture, too.

But maybe before they start arguing about how long Hell lasts, they should look for evidence that there’s a hell in the first place. You’ll find such evidence only in the Bible, for no scorched sinners have returned to tell us of their travails. And then these revisionists might contemplate if a “good” God would even practice “conditional immortality.”

It is issues like this that makes me realize the total intellectual vacuity of theology, as well as how strongly it contrasts with science in the way it settles issues about reality.

h/t: Barry

 

~

Heather Hastie on female genital mutilation: Is it Islamic?

October 13, 2014 • 6:57 am

While I’ve been in New York City, I’ve been running around having fun (a post-book treat for me), and yet readers have been sending me pieces about Reza Aslan, who apparently is on a media blitz to whitewash Islam after the sharp criticisms leveled by Bill Maher and Sam Harris. (One unctuous example can be found here.)

I am SO tired of Aslan’s apologetics about the faith, which never stand up to the merest scrutiny, and I’m equally tired of his self-promotion.  I’ve said enough about him for the time being, but reader Heather Hastie, who has her own website, decided to write a piece dissecting Aslan’s claim that female genital mutilation (FGM) is “not an Islamic practice.” (I believe Aslan originally touted it as an “African practice”.) And indeed, there are non-Muslim Africans who practice this barbaric mutilation, but it’s been largely coopted by Islam as a religiously-mandated mutilation. (See Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book Infidel for how it was practiced on her.)

But I’ll let you read Heather’s analysis over at her website Heather’s Homilies. Her post, which well repays a read, is called “Reza Aslan: Lying for Islam on FGM.” Please leave comments on Heather’s website rather than here, as it’s her post. One brief excerpt:

In Sunni Islam, there are four schools of jurisprudence that express and opinion on the matter. Two of them, the Hanbali and Shafi’i schools, consider FGM obligatory, while the other two, the Hanafi and Maliki schools, recommend it. In addition, there have been several fatwas issued regarding FGM over the years, the majority of which favour it. (Fatwas are not compulsory, but devout Muslims consider them morally imperative.) For example, Fatwa 60314 includes statements that express the importance of FGM within Islam and dismiss the opinions of doctors.

There’s a copy of Fatwa 60314 to see at her post.

~

Snowball, his friends, et moi

October 13, 2014 • 5:26 am

Reader Irena happens to own Snowball the Dancing Cockatoo which is, as far as I know, the only animal in history to be documented to actually move to the beat of music. Or, as Wikipedia puts it,

Snowball (hatched c. 1996) is a male Eleonora cockatoo, noted as being the first non-human animal conclusively demonstrated to be capable of beat induction— perceiving music and synchronizing his body movements to the beat (i.e. dancing).

To make a long story short, I autographed a copy of WEIT for Irena, and drew a very poor likeness of Snowball it, which you can see in the cartoon below.  The cartoon is drawn regularly by Su, another reader who has contributed several bits of artistry to this site, and she incorporated my drawing (and my book) into the latest strip.

Other regulars on the strip are a cockroach named Buddy and a lizard of some sort whose name I’ve forgotten.  But thanks for the plug!

Heeeree’s the gang, and I’ve put a video of Snowball dancing below the cartoon

176 Snowball Cartoon COYNE (1)Snowball dancing. I hope to visit him on a seminar trip next spring, though I’m told that Snowball is a roué, and dancing more readily when there are young ladies present:

Monday: Hili Dialogue

October 13, 2014 • 2:29 am

I’m heading back to Chicago this morning, but taking off for Bulgaria on Wednesday. As I said, writing will be light here until my return on Oct. 27.  Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili, sitting on her jars, pretends innocence. (She’s grown into a three-jar cat.)

A: Does the window frame have your claw marks, or is it just my imagination?
Hili: It is your imagination, of course.

P1010774

In Polish:
Ja: Czy mnie się wydaje, czy to okno nosi ślady twoich pazurów?
Hili: Na pewno ci się tylko tak wydaje.

 

 

The New Yorker event: Cats lost. . . :-(

October 12, 2014 • 8:59 am

Here’s a brief report on “You, the Jury: Cats vs. Dogs“, our debate at the New Yorker Festival about the merits of these pets. (Note the correct placement of the comma in the title, as is apposite for the New Yorker.)

Despite our best efforts, Team Cat went to the d*gs last night, as the post-debate audience “applause vote” was louder for dogs than for cats. Of course the “debate” was a bit like our debates on this site about matters like free will and Jesus’s historicity: people come to the issue knowing their opinions, which almost never change.

But it was enormous fun: everyone tried to be humorous but also say something substantive, and there’s simply too much to describe about the two-hour event. I’l show some pictures of the participants, including some I took in the Green Room. (You can read more about the debaters here.)

This first set of pictures are from Fashion Magazine (??); perhaps they considered the subjects the best-dressed debaters!

Below is Ariel Levy, a New Yorker staff writer who wrote an unbearably sad and touching piece about losing her unborn child while traveling in Mongolia (read it!). It won the National Magazine award for nonfiction, and she’s turning it into a book.

Ariel was a hoot, and scuppered Team D*g by showing a photo she took of Malcolm Gladwell (on Team D*g) cuddling with her own cat (see below as well for Gladwell’s treachery). She also quoted, of all people, Thorstein Veblen on dogs!

the-new-yorker-festival-2014-you-the-jury-cats-vs-dogs-with-anthony-lane-jesse-eisenberg-jill_11

From Team D*g, Alexandra Horowitz, who is a professor of psychology at Barnard, an expert in dog cognition, and the author of a New York Times bestseller on d*gs: Inside of a D*g: What D*gs See, Smell, and Know. Curiously, Alexandra used to be a fact-checker at the New Yorker. She had a great presentation (considering her status as a d*gster) featuring videos of two dogs greeting their owners at the door, servile tails wagging furiously, contrasted with a cat “greeting” its owner: sitting placidly on the couch and then running away when the owner approached.  Team D*g made a big to-do about dog servility, which we cat-lovers do not find an appealing trait.

the-new-yorker-festival-2014-you-the-jury-cats-vs-dogs-with-anthony-lane-jesse-eisenberg-jill_4

Professor Ceiling cat wearing his Hili shirt.  Sadly, the slide-clicker I had malfunctioned, putting a wrench in my presentation, but I did the best I could. I talked about how the evolutionary background of cats vs. d*gs—mainly their difference in ancestral degree of sociality—was responsible for all the things we like about cats. Behind me is an effigy of Jesse Eisenberg, who couldn’t make it but sent a hilarious video about his cat.

the-new-yorker-festival-2014-you-the-jury-cats-vs-dogs-with-anthony-lane-jesse-eisenberg-jill_2

Below: Anthony Lane, leader of Team Cat and one of the New Yorker‘s two film critics. He gave the preliminary remarks and a fiery closing speech emphasizing the importance of cats in movies and writing. As I recall, one of his remarks was something like: “Really, and do you think that James Bond would have a honey-blonde love-interest named Fido Galore?”

the-new-yorker-festival-2014-you-the-jury-cats-vs-dogs-with-anthony-lane-jesse-eisenberg-jill_20

Behind him is the Eisenberg effigy, your host, and Joyce Carol Oates.

Malcolm Gladwell on Team D*g was funny, making a big megillah about how bomb-sniffing dogs were important in the war on terrorism, while cats apparently don’t give a damn about the problem. He played to the audience’s jingoism: a low blow indeed!

the-new-yorker-festival-2014-you-the-jury-cats-vs-dogs-with-anthony-lane-jesse-eisenberg-jill_15

Adam Gopnik: New Yorker staff writer and a friend. His opening and closing statements for Team D*g were witty and well crafted. But more low blows: he said that cats were Republicans and d*gs were Democrats, adding that d*gs were Jewish and cats were goyim.  Whatever the merits of Adam’s appeal to politics and religiosity, it’s precisely the opposite for the owners of those animals!

the-new-yorker-festival-2014-you-the-jury-cats-vs-dogs-with-anthony-lane-jesse-eisenberg-jill_27

Joyce Carol Oates wrote a lovely poem that took off from Christopher Smart’s famous  verse, “For I will consider my cat Geoffrey.” Her presentation was her poem, packed with paeans to cats and disses to d*gs.  I got her to sign for me a copy of her children’s book about cats, Naughty Cherie! (her cat is named Cherie); and she and her husband Charlie Gross (a neuroscientist at Princeton) kindly invited me to dine with them at the Union Square Cafe after the event.  Joyce was gracious and personable, even though I was in awe of being in the presence of a famous author; and her husband was garrulous and full of stories. It was great fun.

the-new-yorker-festival-2014-you-the-jury-cats-vs-dogs-with-anthony-lane-jesse-eisenberg-jill_31

This is Jill Abramson, ex-editor of the New York Times and a member of team D*g. I didn’t catch her name at first, and we sussed it out only at dinner later when we remembered that she talked several times about how she had been “fired” in May. Her talk included displaying a golden retriever toy (you can see it on the desk) which, she said, brought her solace in her time of trouble.

the-new-yorker-festival-2014-you-the-jury-cats-vs-dogs-with-anthony-lane-jesse-eisenberg-jill_35

The next batch of photos below are from Getty Images, which puts a “watermark” on its pix:

David Remnick, the judge, who is the editor of The New Yorker.  He would occasionally warn people when they got too close to “the line,” as when the trainer of Sandy (the d*g appearing in the play “Annie”), displayed the d*g’s visage and said “Look at that face!” Naked appeals to cuteness were not tolerated. Remnick had a gavel that he wielded at such moments. (The audience was also not allowed to say “Awwww!”)

457080608

Cat-breeder and filmmaker Anthony Hutcherson displaying two of the gorgeous Bengal Cats that he breeds as a hobby. One of them was on his lap for the entire two-hour presentation, and, as I was sitting next to him, I got to pet it constantly and have it lick my hand. Everyone, including the d*gster Gladwell, was taken by these beautiful animals.  Hutcherson gave a superb talk on the role of cats in history and, countering the tiresome trope of Team D*g that dogs are good because THEY DO STUFF THAT IS GOOD FOR HUMANS (what a solipsistic view of our evolutionary cousins!), showed a slide of a police dog attacking protestors during the civil rights demonstrations of the 60s.

A lovely guy, Anthony offered members of Team Cat some of the non-show ‘reject’ Bengals that he produces. Anthony, if you’re reading this, I may take you up on that!

The Flaunting of the Bengals marked the end of Anthony’s talk, before the closing statements of Lane and Gopnik.

457080620

Jesse Eisenberg sent in a five-minute video from L.A. (Note: you can now watch it here.) It was side-splittingly funny. He pretended to be in Hawaii and extolling his cat Mr. Trunkles, but began turning pages of his notebook revealing the truth: his cat was holding him hostage in New York and was making him pretend they were in Hawaii. As you can see from the notebook, the secret message included “He used to be just passive aggressive.” The next page said “But now he’s just evil.”

457080526

A few of my snaps from the Green Room:

Our Leader, Anthony Lane, checking his cellphone:

A. Lane

Anthony H. displaying the two Bengal Cats he brought. One of the highlights of the evening was the amount of contact I got to have with these beauteous beasts, holding them and petting them throughout the debate. They were remarkably sanguine (what cat would stay in one’s arms for two hours?), and their fur was incredibly soft.

Anthony H

Joyce holding Jungletrax Flowmaster (I think; the other Bengal was named Jungletrax Masterpiece):

Joyce and Cats

Malcolm and Ariel admiring a Bengal. Look at that face! (Malcolm’s, I mean.) As Ariel noted, Gladwell is clearly smitten with cats: he’s a two-timer! Like science and religion, you have to choose! The Bengal, of course, is diffident, taking it all as his due.

Malcolm Ariel and Jungletrax

Ariel, Malcolm, David, and organizer Rhonda Sherman having pre-debate noms:

Nomming

Bill Berloni, an animal trainer and debater for Team D*g, giving “Sandy” water before the show.  Berloni has trained every Sandy in every “Annie” shown on Broadway, and had the dog onstage for his presentation. His message was largely about the untrainability of cats, which from his vantage is a problem, but from ours a mitzvah.

Sandy

My thanks to all members of Team Cat, to Sam Karshenboym and Rhonda Sherman, who were in charge of the complicated organization of the event, to Adam Gopnik who, I’m sure, was responsible for getting me invited, and to David Remnick for chairing the event (though he was clearly on the side of Team D*g!).

Salman Rushdie condemns “jihadi cool”

October 12, 2014 • 6:32 am

The collision between liberalism and Islam continues, and it will go on. A piece in Saturday’s Torygraph quotes author Salman Rushdie’s words from his lecture given on the occasion of receiving the PEN/Pinter prize,

In his PEN/Pinter Prize Lecture, the author said all religions have their extremists but “the overwhelming weight of the problem lies in the world of Islam”.

. . . Rushdie defined “jihadi-cool” as “the deformed medievalist language of fanaticism, backed up by modern weaponry”, saying: “It’s hard not to conclude that this hate-filled religious rhetoric, pouring from the mouths of ruthless fanatics into the ears of angry young men, has become the most dangerous new weapon in the world today”.

He said: “A word I dislike greatly, ‘Islamophobia’, has been coined to discredit those who point at these excesses, by labelling them as bigots. But in the first place, if I don’t like your ideas, it must be acceptable for me to say so, just as it is acceptable for you to say that you don’t like mine. Ideas cannot be ring-fenced just because they claim to have this or that fictional sky god on their side.

“And in the second place, it’s important to remember that most of those who suffer under the yoke of the new Islamic fanaticism are other Muslims…

“It is right to feel phobia towards such matters. As several commentators have said, what is being killed in Iraq is not just human beings, but a whole culture. To feel aversion towards such a force is not bigotry. It is the only possible response to the horror of events.

“I can’t, as a citizen, avoid speaking of the horror of the world in this new age of religious mayhem, and of the language that conjures it up and justifies it, so that young men, including young Britons, led towards acts of extreme bestiality, believe themselves to be fighting a just war.”

And if you say that Reza Aslan represents one strain of Islam, so Rushdie respresents the views of someone who is an apostate, subject to assassination attempts and the infamous fatwa about Satanic Verses. Aslan can whitewash his faith till the cows come home, but there is now only one religion that issues official calls for death to those who write books they don’t like.

I wonder what Aslan would say about that fatwa: that it’s is purely cultural and not religious to sanction murder towards someone who writes about apocryphal verses in a holy book?

Rushdie had a few choice words for other religionists as well:

“It’s fair to say that more than one religion deserves scrutiny. Christian extremists in the United States today attack women’s

liberties and gay rights in language they claim comes from God. Hindu extremists in India today are launching an assault on free expression and trying, literally, to rewrite history, proposing the alteration of school textbooks to serve their narrow saffron dogmatism.

“But the overwhelming weight of the problem lies in the world of Islam, and much of it has its roots in the ideological language of blood and war emanating from the Salafist movement within Islam, globally backed by Saudi Arabia.”

For these ideologues, “modernity itself is the enemy, modernity with its language of liberty, for women as well as men, with its insistence of legitimacy in government rather than tyranny, and with its stroninclination towards secularism and away from religion.”