Oliver Sacks’s last interview

May 18, 2015 • 10:00 am

The latest RadioLab on National Public Radio features a taped interview with Oliver Sacks, “Dr. Sacks looks back,” which is probably the last time we’ll hear from him. As you probably know, Sacks has been diagnosed with terminal liver cancer (see here and here), and decided not to give further interviews. But Robert Krulwich, armed with a tape recorder, visited Sacks in his Manhattan apartment and persuaded him to speak one more time. It’s the final part of this broadcast, starting at 31:10 and lasting about 23 minutes, ending with some lovely and ethereal music.

Krulwich handles it with affection and humor, not worshipfully or elegiacally, which makes it all the more poignant: it’s as if he’s expecting Sacks to continue contributing to the show in the future. Sacks describes how he felt when he got his terminal diagnosis (very upset and regretful for things he won’t see), but spends most of his time discussing his life as a gay man, and the loneliness of not being able to find love. (“I haven’t had any sex for thirty-five years.”)

How wonderful, then, and yet how sad, that Sacks finally managed to find a partner—real, reciprocated love—when he was 77. (Sacks is now 81.) The show finishes with a  bit about Sack’s strong desire to see the color indigo, which he did only twice, and with Krulwich’s hope that perhaps Sacks will see that long-sought color once again. (I’m not sure if that bit has religious overtones.)

So farewell, Dr. Sacks, and thanks for all the tales.

sacks

The tenacity of belief in belief

May 18, 2015 • 8:30 am

The recent Pew Report on “America’s changing religious landscape” showed, over the last 7 years, a sharp decline in adherents to mainline Protestantism and Catholicism in the U.S., and a corresponding increase in the numbers of religiously “unaffiliated” (the latter went from 16.1% in 2007 to 22.8% last year).  Now, not all of the “unaffiliated” are nonbelievers: many are simply people who believe in God but haven’t found an established church that meets their needs, while others may believe in some kind of nebulous and unspecified divinity. Still, the report emphasizes that atheists and agnostics themselves are on the rise. From p. 14 of the report:

As the ranks of the religiously unaffiliated continue to grow, they also describe themselves in increasingly secular terms. In 2007, 25% of the “nones” called themselves atheists or agnostics; 39% identified their religion as “nothing in particular” and also said that religion is “not too” or “not at all” important in their lives; and 36% identified their religion as “nothing in particular” while nevertheless saying that religion is either “very important” or “somewhat important” in their lives. The new survey finds that the atheist and agnostic share of the “nones” has grown to 31%. Those identifying as “nothing in particular” and describing religion as unimportant in their lives continue to account for 39% of all “nones.” But the share identifying as “nothing in particular” while also affirming that religion is either “very” or “somewhat” important to them has fallen to 30% of all “nones.”

And, as I showed three days ago (well, it was shown by David Leondhart in the New York Times), the proportion of the nonreligious is highest in the youngest generation: 25% of “millennials” (those born after 1980) are either agnostics (7%), atheists (5%), or whose religion is “nothing in particular” (13%).  By comparison, for those born between 1946 and 1964 (my generation), the total figure is only 11%.

There’s no way to interpret the data except as showing that religion, either formal or construed as belief in God, is on the wane in America.

But some people still try to pretend otherwise. One of those who seems to ignore the facts is author Peter Manseau, who wrote an op-ed in Sunday’s New York Times, “Thou shalt worship none of the above.” Manseau’s point is that Americans have historically gone through periods of coming to and then leaving traditional faiths, so there’s nothing new about Pew.

He gives a potted history of some evangelists who rejected traditional faith, but it’s thin and unconvincing. Yet from it he draws fairly strong conclusions:

This history suggests that, despite the headlines to the contrary, we are not necessarily seeing a period of religious decline. Rather, this may be just the latest in a series of moments when more Americans are intent on custom-tailoring their religious identities. The Pew numbers support this: At least a third of Americans today do not maintain the affiliation with which they were raised.

Look at the evidence, my dear Mr. Manseau!  Religious identity isn’t just being swapped from one faith to another (or to a non-churchy belief in God)—it’s disappearing!

Most important, Manseau fails to address the palpable increase in not just the “nones,” but the proportion of Americans who are both “nones” and nonbelievers. Here’s his argument (my emphasis):

More recently, Americans’ desire in the 1970s and ’80s to devise spiritual identities apart from traditional categories was labeled “Sheilaism” by the sociologist Robert Bellah, for a woman called Sheila who believed in God, did not go to church, but trusted her own internal voice to direct her on a spiritual path.

Many of today’s “nones” are yesterday’s “Sheilas,” and some of them may be spiritual descendants of those New Lights whose innovative ways of being (and not being) religious established trends in American belief nearly three centuries ago. The rising and falling preference for the open air of unaffiliation is not only not new, it is exactly how religion in America has been periodically enriched and expanded from the beginning.

It’s too soon to tell what the continuing negotiation between belief and unbelief described in the Pew study will bring, but the picture it provides of religious communities in flux suggests that the next Great Awakening — a transformation of the religious character of the nation as radical as it is unexpected — might be led by those with too many spiritual influences to choose just one.

Seriously? He uses “Sheilaism” to claim that religion (in the form of spirituality) is still with us, and that religion isn’t waning, but just changing? There are none so blind as those who will not see.

As Dan Dennett has noted, it’s possible that some cataclysm could force Americans back to church, but that hasn’t happened for decades.  Instead of trying to reassure Times readers that they needn’t worry, as faith is still with us, Manseau should just bite the bullet and admit that America is losing its faith.

But that wouldn’t sit well with the editors of the New York Times, who hold a journalistic “Little People’s View”: we aren’t religious, but we need to reassure our readers that belief is good, and remains an important part of America. Why else would they continue to publish the mushy lucubrations of Tanya Luhrmann, but abjure columnists who regularly criticize religion?

Readers’ wildlife photographs

May 18, 2015 • 7:45 am

We have contributions from two readers today. First, Joe Dickinson sent some “non-avian wildlife” (his term) from a recent trip:

From a recent road trip to Nebraska, here are some shots of non-avian wildlife.  First, a golden-mantled ground squirrel (Callospermophilus lateralis) that approached me at a vista point along US 160 in southern Colorado, probably hoping for a handout.

1

Then, from the wonderful Lauritzen Gardens in Omaha, an eastern cottontail (Sylvlagus floridanus), a tiger swallowtail (Papilio glaucus) and, for something rather different, a giant monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) constructed from Legos (part of a special exhibit).

2

3
 4

Finally, for comparison, I’ve included an actual monarch photographed in Stinson Beach, CA a few years ago.

5

Here are some dragonflies from John Harshman:

These are photos of flame skimmers (Libellula saturata), which for some reason like to sit on clothespins in my back yard. The first two are the same male, and the third is a female. The pattern in the hindwing veins that looks like a foot is diagnostic for the family Libellulidae.

skimmer1

skimmer3

skimmer4

Hili dialogue (and lagniappe): Monday

May 18, 2015 • 5:16 am

It’s Book Week, with Albatross officially fledging tomorrow! Will it survive the many religious predators waiting to gobble it up, or attack it with cries of “It misses the nuances of Sophisticated Theology”? We shall see. Everything has already been determined by the laws of physics. Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is pondering her ancestors; Malgorzata explains:

Hili is sharpening her claws. It takes time. She is thinking about the cats before the time they domesticated humans and got readymade catfood in nice bowls. They had to hunt for everything they ate. Sharpening the claws is time consuming. Did those cats in the past have to take precious time from hunting in order to take care of their claws, or did claws take care of themselves during hunting?

Hili: Did cats in the past spend so much time looking after their claws?
A: Check on the Internet.

P1020739

In Polish:
Hili: Czy kotom dawniej dbanie o pazurki też zabierało tyle czasu?
Ja: Sprawdź w Internecie.
Malgorzata also included a bonus Hili with an explanation:
And there is another picture of Hili on Andrzej’s Facebook page but it is definitely for the Polish readers. Next Sunday there is a second round of presidential elections in Poland. One of the candidates is supported by the greatest bigot in the Polish Church, a priest with the name Tadeusz Rydzyk (and the competition for this place is fierce). So Hili is asking: Is there anybody here who wants to vote as Mr. Rydzyk?
11246473_10206120941009845_6427482043564977875_n

Missing reader alert: Stephen John Williams

May 17, 2015 • 11:00 pm

I have been alerted that one of our British readers, Mr. Stephen John Williams, has gone missing as of Thursday, May 14. His disappearance has been reported to the police, and his siblings Ann and Clive are terribly worried.

I’m told that Mr. Williams is a fan of this website and reads it often. And so, I’m addressing Mr. Williams to ask a favor: if you happen upon this post, please contact Ann, Clive, or even the Devon & Cornwall police to let somebody know that you are alive and well—even if you don’t want to be found.

I don’t like readers going missing, so please, Stephen, check in with your people. Or, if it suits you better, leave a comment below.

Flycatcher: the clue is in the name

May 17, 2015 • 3:09 pm

by Matthew Cobb

Here’s a great video by Robert Martin of a male Pied Flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca) at Gilfach Farm, Radnorshire, Wales, doing what comes naturally. This was filmed just under a year ago – 31 May 2014 – and shows the casual agility of these birds. At least it was quick for the insect.

Just think about the complexity of the neural circuits that enable the bird to recognise the incoming arthropod, plot an intercept course, then move its body to the appropriate point and take the necessary action, all in a few dozen milliseconds. That’s the power of natural selection. Truly awesome, as Professor Ceiling Cat would say.

h/t @edyong209 on Tw*tter

Stony Brook students join the P.C. safe-space club

May 17, 2015 • 1:30 pm

According to The Statesman, the student newspaper of Stony Brook University (also known as The State University of New York at Stony Brook, or SUNY), the school has joined the club of Special Snowflakes Who Cannot Be Offended.  And again it is the students and not the administration who are complaining about hurt feelings and having been suddenly yanked out of their “safe space.” This is one of the most bizarre attempts to restrict free speech I’ve seen yet, for it involves students complaining about a debate in which their own side was defended! They don’t even want a debate, much less a standalone speaker who opposes their views.

Here’s what happened.  In late April, skeptic and author Michael Shermer debated the Christian apologist Frank Turek at the SUNY student union.  Sponsored by NewYorkApologetic.com, the debate was about “What better explains morality, God or science?” Shermer took the science side and Turek the religious one. The debate is online here, but I haven’t yet watched it.

Apparently Shermer brought up the topic of same-sex marriage as an example of something that rationality would support but that many religiously-derived views of morality would condemn. Shermer demanded that Turek give his opinion of the issue, which he did (he opposes gay marriage). There was some back-and-forth on the issue, and some segments of the audience applauded Shermer and others Turek, showing a divergence of opinion on this issue among the audience.

Well, the fact that Turek publicly stated disapproval of gay marriage was too much for the Graduate Queer Alliance (GQA), which wrote a long and rambling letter to the editor of The Statesman, “Hate speech requires transparency.” It’s one of the strangest expressions of “I’m offended” I’ve ever seen. They can’t complain that only one side of the issue was aired (Shermer was strongly in favor of gay marriage), so they have to argue that someone who even discusses opposition to gay marriage creates an unsafe space that is damaging to students. In other words, giving such an opinion shouldn’t be allowed on campus.

Here are few excerpts from the GQA letter to show its craziness, which involves the classic, “I’m in favor of free speech BUT. . “:

We encourage open dialogue as a way to evaluate evidence, formulate opinions and communicate those opinions to others. However, not all ideas are morally fungible. Some are, in fact, harmful, and at a liberal educational institution, injurious ideas are rightfully criticized and not given an unquestioned platform to be presented. A different mechanism of presentation is required if ideas are deemed potentially harmful, and this mechanism holds to a higher standard the rigor with which they will be subsequently evaluated.

What higher standard than having an eloquent opponent (Shermer) deride the opponent’s views? What more do they want? As we’ll see below, they want official university condemnation of Turek’s views.

. . . Turek was openly and unabashedly Islamophobic, sexist and misogynistic. He misrepresented the views of a variety of other groups as well, and mocked and denied the theory of evolution the same week that scientists at Stony Brook discovered humanity’s oldest stone tools.

Turek’s propaganda is so far from the truth that it should be self-evident in the 21st century and especially to the millennial generation that currently attends Stony Brook that a speaker who holds these beliefs should not be given such a prestigious platform to speak in the first place.

Yep, that’s censorship: some ideas are simply too hurtful to be presented. But isn’t that an abrogation of free speech? The GQA, of course, says no (these letter-writers would have made good theologians):

This is not an issue of free speech, not least because the views that Dr. Turek expresses have already been evaluated and exchanged in public forums countless times, and it has been concluded that they are indeed wrong and harmful. We do not tolerate people who advocate for ridiculous things like racial segregation in schools an unquestioned platform to speak, despite the fact that they are allowed to express those views in other public forums. A public school administration would rightfully fight the expression of bigotry like this on a college campus, so why should someone who speaks just as hatefully toward gays and other groups be treated differently?

. . . Again, disagreement and debate on social and moral matters, even when there is a common set of facts, is the crux of a liberal university culture. Free and open debate should be encouraged, but not when what is being said is so clearly wrong and so clearly harmful to others.

These people have no inkling what free speech is really about! They are the Arbiters of what is okay speech and what is prohibited WRONG speech.

At the Graduate Queer Alliance, we believe in free speech, we believe in the freedom to practice one’s faith, we believe in diversity. We support these things even if opinions are different from our own. However, we are vehemently against pointless bigotry of any sort.

So it’s okay to allow free speech even if the GQA doesn’t share its content—EXCEPT when those opinions are “pointless bigotry,” i.e., opinions that aren’t shared by GQA. We’re down the rabbit hole here.

Wrong and harmful! Well, there are still many people who oppose gay marriage, and while I disagree with them, don’t they deserve an airing of their reasons, especially if someone like Shermer is there to knock them down? It’s just bizarre that the writers claim that some issues are simply settled, and that allowing them to even be mentioned is “wrong and harmful.”  What world are these people living in? In fact, it’s because we have been able to air views about gay marriage that most Americans have been convinced that gays should have the same rights to marry as anyone else. And the debate clearly continues, for many opponents remain, and the Supreme Court hasn’t even weighed in on its federal legality. Do we really want to appoint anyone, or any group, to decide what issues have been “settled” and no longer deserve airing.

What do the letter-writers want? Well, first of all, censorship, because opposition to gay marriage on religious grounds is clearly “hate speech”:

It is incumbent upon the administration at all levels to ensure fair and open dialogue without bringing harm to any community on campus. . . . . Turek’s hate-speech instigates and nourishes a culture of homophobia and should simply not be tolerated on campus without the appropriate actions taken to put it into context.

If Shermer wasn’t taking the appropriate actions to put the “hate speech” into context, I don’t know what else can be done. Oh, yes, the group passed a resolution demanding that the School of Social Welfare, which apparently hosted the event without much publicity, be censured. They’re also asking for those who hosted the event to apologize, and for the president of SUNY, the deans, and the graduate school “to reiterate the university’s commitment to providing an inclusive environment for all students, especially LGBTQ* folks, to flourish and grow.” Finally, they want their Safe Space:

We open our meetings to provide a safe space to members of the university community to heal from Dr. Turek’s bigotry and encourage further discussion on this matter.

Was it really that painful to hear Turek oppose gay marriage, even when Shermer took him apart? How much healing needs to be done? And if there’s this kind of damage from a debate, which students didn’t have to attend, what will happen to them when they go into the real world of Chick-Fil-A and Christian homophobes?

The consequence of allowing one group to censor those with opposing opinions is that no controversial opinions will be aired. Jewish students will be offended by the BDS movement, Palestinian students by celebrations of Israeli independence, feminists by “men’s rights” advocates or the wrong kind of feminist, and so on. In the end, nobody will be able to say anything, and everybody will be cosseted in their safe spaces with Play-Doh and kitten videos.

Fortunately Turek and Shermer, an unlikely pair, joined forces to criticize the students’ complaints by writing their own joint letter to the Statesman. They show that some of the students’ claims were flat wrong, but, more important, make this critical point (the first four sentences are great; my emphasis):

Finally, on the issue of tolerance, it appears that GQA only wants to tolerate ideas they agree with. That’s not tolerance. That’s totalitarianism. You can only tolerate ideas you disagree with. Moreover, you will never learn and grow (the essence of a university) if you hear only one side of any issue. As Dr. Shermer points out in The Moral Arc by quoting same sex marriage advocate Jonathan Rauch: “Good ideas outcompete bad ideas in the marketplace of free exchange.” Now that’s a good idea rooted in the very foundation of a free society.

Unfortunately, GQA is expressing a totalitarian impulse to silence all opinions that dissent from their own. As a free people, we must not adopt such an unlearned, intolerant and unconstitutional position. This atheist and Christian agree with same sex marriage advocate Andrew Sullivan who wrote against this totalitarian impulse this way: “If this is the gay rights movement today—hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else—then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.”

As always, the issue comes down to this: who has the right to prevent others from speaking? Apart from government (or university) restrictions on speech that incites immediate physical attack or constitutes illegal harassment, there is no cogent answer to that question. Everybody could make the claim that opinions they don’t like represent opinions that are “objectively” wrong and harmful. Well, there is no objective right or wrong when it comes to gay marriage, or morality in general. I believe that a society that doesn’t give those civil rights to gays is a society that is substantially worse than one that doesn’t, but others disagree. Let us continue the debate, for that’s the only way I know that the oppression of gays—or any minority—will end. Doesn’t the GQA realize that its form of censorship and bullying, and its dissimulation about “free speech,” actually damages its cause?