Pew report on Muslim world paints a distressing picture

May 8, 2013 • 8:51 am
The Pew Research Center just issued a report on Islamic beliefs: “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society” (a one page summary here).  The researchers surveyed over 38,000 people in one-on-one interviews in 39 countries—all countries having more than 10 million Muslims.  Unfortunately, they left out Saudi Arabia and Iran, where, they note, “political sensitivities or security concerns prevented opinion research among Muslims.”  This alone suggests that including those countries would have given the data an even more extremist slant than they had.  Here’s where Pew surveyed:

gsi2-exec-map

For a quick overview, read the executive summary at the second link above; I suppose those who are both pro- and anti-Islam will find succor in that summary.  For example, here’s how the countries rank in how their inhabitants see the compatibility of science and Islam:
Picture 1
and this may reassure those people who argue that support for terrorism is not a majority Muslim view (I’ve never maintained that, by the way, only that supporters of terrorism aren’t a tiny fraction of Muslims):
Picture 1
(One could, however, question whether 13-40% is a “tiny minority” of extremists.) Overall, 8% of Muslims interviewed said that suicide bombing iseither often justified or sometimes justified to defend Islam, with numbers near 40% is Afghanistan and Palestine.
On the other hand, much of the data are like this, and not heartening at all:
Sharia
Stoning, noted as proportion of those (see above graph) claiming that sharia should be “the law of the land”:
Stoning
That’s scary in view of the high proportion of Muslims that think sharia should be the law. Equally scary are the data on how to treat  apostasy:
Apostasy
The morality of homosexuality, from among all Muslims surveyed:
Homosexuality
The place of women (usually to STFU):
EqualityRemember again that these data exclude Saudi Arabia and Iran. There’s little doubt that adding those nations would increase the oppressiveness factor in these data.
But go and see the survey yourself, as the pdf is free, and those who see Islam as no worse than other faiths will be able to find something to support that view.
One things worries me about these results, and it’s not because I’m determined to find Islam as an pernicious faith (that’s already known). It’s that these data were obtained by face-to-face interviews rather than anonymous written questionnaires, and I suspect that people want to appear less extreme when they’re being asked to answer verbally.  What makes me think this is the disparity in the results of the Pew survey on the evolution-friendliness of Muslims with those of a previous survey conducted by written response.  Here’s the results from this Pew survey, which, frankly, surprised me:
Evolution
Compare these figures with those published in 2008 by Salman Hadeed (Bracing for Islamic creationism. Science 322:1637 – 1638), with data taken from a 2007 study of Riaz Hassan (On being religious: patterns of religious commitment in Muslim societies. The Muslim World 97:437-478). The disparity is striking.  The Pew Survey shows 30% of Pakistani Muslims accepting evolution (and 38% creationists), while the Hassan survey shows only half that degree of evolution acceptance.  Pew shows that 37% of Malaysian Muslims are down with evolution; the Hassan survey’s figure is about 12%.
Hameed survey
The difference? Well, it could be how the questions were framed, but given the historically high resistance of Muslims to evolution, I suspect it reflects a difference between verbal interviews (Pew) and written questionnaires (Hassan). Indeed, Hassan’s survey concentrated on the Muslim elite. Hassan notes in his Appendix:
After considerable consultation with local colleagues, it was concluded that the only way to capture the elite dimension was to focus on highly educated groups occupying professional, economic, social, religious, cultural and bureaucratic positions in the mainstream social structures of their respective societies. The sample in each country was therefore stratified by those who were active in major legal religious organizations and highly educated respondents who were actively involved in professional, business, bureaucratic and cultural organizations. About 30 percent of each sample was chosen from the general public. In each group, between 20 and 45 percent of the respondents were women.
I’m not nearly as concerned with the effects of Islam on creationism as I am on other things, like oppression of women, enforcement of despotic sexual mores and other behaviors, and pervasive prosyletizing. The disparity in the evolution data makes me wonder if the other data given by Pew are really a good overview of Muslim belief.   (Do note that other surveys of Muslims show more extreme opinions than does Pew).
I’m also aware that these data aren’t compared to those of other faiths, but I doubt that as many Quakers or Catholics would like to see their religious dictates become law of the land, or would favor stoning for adultery or death for leaving the faith (Catholics just excommunicate you).
But I’ll leave it to you to read and interpret the data for yourselves.
h/t: Tona

Panorama from Grandfather Mountain (and a creationist teacher)

May 8, 2013 • 5:08 am

UPDATE:  I’ve received an apologetic post from Mr. Eastman, which he tried to post on the picture page, where nobody would see it. I’ve therefore put it here for the record:

Dear Jerry : I am very sorry I wrote on a blog without thinking in a reactive manner>
I did not want to enter into the fray in public and now it has happened. I honor and respect your work in evolution. I accept evolution and always have since grade school.
I have after my unfortunate entry into this matter read a book by a Biblical scholar recommended by Francis S Collins that states there is nothing scientific in Genesis and one should not attempt to state so. It is ancient literature and not science. After reconsideration I retract the published comment and ask you to take it down and accept my apology and understand that I am struggling to personally come to terms with this issue and am in this matter just a human being living on planet earth like you/ but have no academic expertise in science and only an MA in Biblical studies from a Catholic University and an MA in Spanish from a state university/I am a humble instructor getting back in a few minutes to correcting INT Spanish exams
I am very sorry I questioned your Hebrew soul. It was wrong of me. I happen to like reading Biblical Hebrew, but it may not appeal to you. I happen to be repelled by the violent passages in the Hebrew Bible but am inspired by the Vision of Isaiah of a world of Justice and Peace ( Shalom). I feel closer to the viewpoint of John Haught than yours but don’t wish to disparage you as a human being. I would rather have an honest , ethical atheist on a town council than a raving fundamentalist…but most Americans are somewhere in the middle.. I lean Liberal Left in politics..I am sorry this matter is so polarizing now in our country and was hurt the way people lit into me for my comments/I wish to live in a scientifically enlightened country with good health care for ALL ..The soul (if it exists// and I believe it does) will never be found under a microscope.. I agree to disagree and wish to be civil. sir. we differ on religion,, I accept that you want to rid America of it..I don’t .. though I worry about cries for war in the name of G-d.( I believe in a G-d of Justice ,Peace and Love) I look to Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and Martin Buber who favored a bi national state with civic equality for Jews and Arabs in Israel.. but that’s another question . Again I wish you well and may cooler heads and hearts prevail and please accept my most humble apology.
Best regards, Jeffrey Eastman

Needless to say, I am not taking down his initial published statement. I will, however, accept his apology and expect to hear no more creationist-tinged criticism from this instructor at Appalacian State University.

_______________

Excuse the quality of this video (I rarely take movies with my digital camera), but it does show a panorama of the Appalachians from near the top of Grandfather Mountain, North Carolina. Shortly after I took this, the mists closed in and we couldn’t see anything. But the view of the verdant hills was stupendous.

This was taken on my trip to North Carolina to speak at Appalachian State.

And the pushback from my visit continues. There’s a letter from an ASU student at the High Country Press, and this comment on someone’s website from Jeffrey Eastman, a lecturer at that University.  Sadly, none of my opponents, like this benighted gentlemen, had the courage to stand up and address me in person.

Picture 3

Yes, Mr. Eastman, don’t bother writing that letter; I doubt I’ll find my lost Hebrew soul.

National Cancer Institute researchers fail to notice ten-legged cat

May 8, 2013 • 4:44 am

UPDATE: Here’s Titan in his four-legged form:

Titan - 4 legs

_________

Here’s where the missing legs went.  (Remember yesterday’s two-legged cat? Sadly, that’s proven to be a Photoshopped ruse rather than a true Google Street View image; see here and here.)

Millicat
This photo was sent by reader Simon Hayward, professor of Urolic Surgery and Cancer Biology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennesee.  It shows a group of researchers convened at a recent National Cancer Institute “retreat” (pretty cushy, eh?). Hayward added this note:

In the attached photo–part of a panoramic view taken on an iPhone in my backyard last week—three biologists, a computer scientist, and a stray pathologist all fail to notice the ten-legged cat walking by (as indeed did the mathematical biologist who took the picture). Clearly trained observers.

He later appended something from the deci-cat himself:

Titan the cat would like it to be known that this is an illusion caused by his advanced hunting skills!

Tweet of the day: the swift

May 8, 2013 • 3:57 am

by Matthew Cobb

Today’s 2-minute ‘Tweet of the day’ on BBC Radio 4 was devoted to my favourite bird, the Common Swift, Apus apus. You can listen to David Attenborough’s brief programme here.

For many European readers, the sight and sound of swifts is the sign that summer is a-coming. As this excellent video from Denmark shows, they fly round in groups, making screeching noises that are incredibly evocative. The reason for the noise is not known, but may be simply a way of sticking together (why?):

As the latin name – Apus apus – indicates, they have short legs and small feet, with very sharp claws that enable them to cling onto surfaces near their nests. Rumour has it that a swift that falls to the ground will not be able to launch itself and fly unless it is near a cliff edge.

Swifts are the last of the migratory birds to arrive in Europe from Africa (they arrive in early May) and the first to leave (mid-August). Other migrants, such as house martins, can stay on into late September. It’s partly this brief sojourn in Europe which makes them so precious to people. When I lived in Paris, the swifts would go screeching round the courtyard of my building, flying a metre away from my balcony.

Last year was a dreadful summer, and in Manchester, where I live, the swifts disappeared in July – either dying from hunger or deciding that it simply wasn’t worth hanging around trying to rear a brood in such awful conditions. I spotted my first swift of the year over the weekend, flying over the woods near my home.

According to a widely-believed story, R. J. Mitchell, the designer of the Spitfire fighter aircraft that became so iconic for the British in WW2 was inspired in his design by watching swifts. Whatever the case, the astonishing manoeuvrability of the bird far far exceeds that of the aeroplane.

If you are on Twitter, follow @SaveourSwifts for the latest news and sightings in the UK and Continental Europe.

A Google doodle worth watching

May 7, 2013 • 5:33 pm

Today’s Google doodle, which begins at midnight—and it’s already underway in the UK—is an animated homage to graphic designer Saul Bass, who would have been 93 on May 8 had he lived (he died in 1996).

This is a screenshot; over at the real site, press “play” and watch the fun. Music by Dave Brubeck.

Screen shot 2013-05-07 at 7.31.13 PM

You may remember some of the logos he designed (I recognized 14 out of the 18 below):

SaulBassLogos

Or his movie posters, like this one:

AnatomyMurder2

 

Oy vey—a glossy Templeton-funded “science” magazine

May 7, 2013 • 12:49 pm

Yesterday’s New York Times reports on the arrival of a new science magazine: Nautilus: Science Connected. The NYT piece,”A glossy science magazine or a living fossil?“, notes that the magazine is funded by the Templeton Foundation (in fact, there’s no mention of any other funding), will appear quarterly on paper for a fee of $49/year, and has a free online version (first issue here).

I’m biased against Templeton because of their past history of suborning science in the service of faith, but this magazine looks like more of the same. The first online issue, called “What makes you so special? The puzzle of human uniqueness,” is right up Templeton’s alley. There’s an interview with Frans de Waal that, although arguing for an evolutionary origin of human morality, includes a hefty dose of atheist-bashing, and a number of small pieces on biology and physics that, to my mind, are rather superficial. Mercifully lacking is any overt accommodationism, so while I judge the magazine relatively free of faith-osculation, it’s not impressive vis-à-vis the science.  Nautilus is in fact reminiscent of Templeton’s moribund “Big Questions Online” site, which paid hefty sums to writers, but rarely posted anything. I don’t know anyone who looks at it or even mentions it.

As the NYT notes, it’s not a good time to introduce a glossy science magazine, since in recent years many of them, like Omni, Science 79, and Science Digest, have gone belly-up. Others, like Discover, are struggling. The Times blames stiff competition from other magazines like National Geographic, as well as from blogs, TED talks, and the proliferation of online science journalism; and I think they’re right. What is not mentioned is that these alternative sources are not only free, but meatier than the first online issue of Nautilus. Who wants to pay $49/year for a glossy, Templeton-funded magazine when you can get better content for free?

The Times does address the issue of Templeton editorial control, claiming it’s nonexistent:

Mr. [John] Steele, 60, who studied philosophy before an eclectic career that included being a gofer for Walter Cronkite and the Rome bureau chief for NBC, hatched the idea for Nautilus a year ago, after the death of a colleague reminded him, as he says, that life is not a dress rehearsal. [JAC note: John Steele is owner, founder and publisher of Nautilus].

. . . He shopped his idea to the Templeton Foundation, perhaps best known for its annual $1.7 million prize for the advancement of spirituality (this year’s winner was Desmond M. Tutu) but also an enthusiastic supporter of what it calls Big Ideas.

It is viewed with suspicion in some scientific circles as having a religious agenda. Mr. Steele said that other than approving the concept, it had no editorial input.

The grant gives the staff time to build an audience, to gather data to present to potential advertisers, and to figure out how to make money, Mr. Steele said.

I find the “no editorial input” caveat a bit disingenuous. Sure, Templeton may not tell them what to write, but you can bet that Nautilus‘s funding will continue only if they publish content friendly to the Foundation.  After all, the Foundation’s information about David Thomas, Templeton’s director of “cultural engagement,” says this:

Mr. Thomas takes a passionate interest in new media and the ways in which technology is changing our world. He advocates at the Foundation for innovative approaches to outreach and facilitating a global conversation about the Big Questions. These endeavors include Big Questions Online and the Nautilus digital publication.

That sounds like Templeton is a wee bit more engaged than simply providing funds.

At any rate, I predict that the paper magazine will be dead within a year and the online site will become very quiet, like “Big Questions Online.” I also surmise that the magazine pays its authors substantially more than do competing sites and magazines.

UPDATES: And here you go, right on Templeton’s front page:

Screen shot 2013-05-07 at 4.06.48 PMFinally, an interview of Amos Zeeberg by “Communications Breakdown” at SciLogs at reveals this:

CB: Did Templeton provide all of the financial backing for the project? And were they only providing start-up funds, or will they be funding the project moving forward? Will Nautilus rely on advertising or subscriptions to generate revenue?

Zeeberg: The Templeton Foundation provided all of the money for our launch and for the initial operation of the magazine. We hope they’ll fund us further, and we also are getting revenue from advertising and potentially other foundations.

In the near term, all our content is free, so there are no subscription costs, but I wouldn’t rule it out as a possibility over the mid-to-long term.

CB: Has Templeton had any editorial involvement, or have they given you full independence in terms of shaping what Nautilus will and won’t do?

Zeeberg: They had some input in working out, with John, the editorial purview of the magazine – that we’d be covering big questions in science in a thoughtful, philosophical way. Nothing beyond that; nothing in the month-to-month work.

That’s a weird way to hand out grants: first giving them and then helping the grantee work out what direction the funded operation—the magazine—is going to go.  But that’s what one expects from Templeton.

A “hope for further Templeton funding” + help with “working out the editorial purview of the magazine” = bad news for science.

Google Street View discovers new cat species!

May 7, 2013 • 8:02 am

It’s Felis bipedus, spotted on Google Street View and posted here.

google-street-view-cat2

I have no idea how this happened, but I’m sure a tech-savvy reader can explain. It apparently involves the compression of images by the Google Street View cars, a vehicle that I never thought about.  Matthew Cobb, who sent me the photo and links, also noted that “There’s an art form whereby people tool around on street view and see what they can find. Some are funny, others beautiful, others bleak.”  You can see examples here and here.

The second link explains how they make the street views, a process involving a fleet of hybrid automobiles that cruise the world, each carrying nine cameras on a single pole, with pictures snapped every 10-20 meters. The photos are electronically stitched together, probably explaining the moggie above.

What is compatibilism, really?

May 7, 2013 • 5:53 am

By way of getting feedback from readers, I want to highlight a comment by reader Jeff Johnson on a post I did a few days ago about moral responsibility. Here’s part of what he said:

All that’s really going on here is that people called compatibilists have an emotional attachment to the idea of “free will”, so they have reassigned the conceptual target of the phrase to enable them to retain a cherished relic. This doesn’t add any new knowledge. It preserves a tradition that should have become obsolete by now.

If you visit here often, you’ll know that I pretty much agree with this. The history of the notion of “free will” seems clear. It began as frankly dualistic—the idea that there was part of your brain that could make decisions, and that part was somehow autonomous, non-determined, and could override the regular workings of your neurons.  This was, of course, the basis for Christian salvation, and is still the notion held by many religious folks, as well as those theologians who rationalize moral evil as a necessary byproduct of “free will.” That “free will,” of course, means that “one could have chosen otherwise.” (Yes, I know about Calvinism, where salvation is predetermined).

Now most of us think that the notion of “free choice,” as in the sense of “could have chosen otherwise at a given moment,” is wrong.  Excepting quantum mechanics—whose effects on behavior are unknown, and whose pure indeterminacy doesn’t fit most people’s idea of ‘ “free will”—our behaviors are determined by physical laws, and can’t be overridden by some spirit in the brain.  Ergo, as Jeff said, libertarian free will is dead. I think that nearly all of us agree.

Nevertheless, philosophers have redefined free will, assuring us that everything is all right (the nasty fact and implications of determinism are swept under the rug).  To me, this redefinition resembles the ways that Sophisticated Theologians™ have redefined God in a scientific world that has increasingly made personal deities obsolete. Instead of being a personal humanoid God,  he’s seen as a “ground of being,” a “thing which can’t be spoken of” or “the vast and inexhaustible depth of the universe.”  Just as the ghost has been removed from free will, so the human has been removed from God. In both cases, an idea that was tangible has been replaced with something nebulous and unclear.

Over the past months, I’ve been surprised at the number of readers who are compatibilists, comfortable with a notion of free will that accepts material determinism.  So, if you’re one of these, I’d appreciate your answering the few questions below. Feel free to discuss other peoples’ definitions, but if you’re a compatibilist you have to answer the questions first.  Think of it as a pop quiz given by Professor Ceiling Cat, and your answers can be short. If you’re an incompatibilist, like me, first declare yourself and then feel free to join in—in a civil manner, of course. The object of this exercise is for me to learn how readers see compatibilism by asking a few brief questions rather than divining the answers from discussion and argument.

For compatibilists:

1. What is your definition of free will?

2. What is “free” about it? Is someone who kills because of a brain tumor less free than someone who kills because, having been brought up in a terrible environment, he values drugs more than other people’s lives?

3. If humans have free will, do other species as well? What about computers?

4. Why is it important that you have a definition of free will rather than discarding the concept completely in favor of something like “agency”? That is, what “new knowledge”, as Jeff noted, does your concept add beyond reassuring people that we have “free will” after all?

Keep in mind the implicit incompatibilism of Jessica Rabbit.

Pencils up!

25129