Nonexistent girlfriend okay, nonexistent deity not so gud, akshually

January 20, 2013 • 5:29 am

The American college football player (i.e., not soccer) Manti T’eo is all over the news in the U.S.  Born in Hawaii, and of Samoan extraction, he’s now playing as a linebacker for the University of Notre Dame and is a prime candidate to go to the pros, i.e., the National Football League.

Last week T’eo became embroiled in what has turned into a scandal: this season he claimed that he had played extra aggressively because both his grandmother and girlfriend had died on the same day.  Reporters later found out that no such girlfriend existed, whereupon it was revealed that T’eo was the victim of a phone hoax perpetrated by an acquaintance, in which a woman (still unknown) would call T’eo and talk to him for hours. T’eo claims he formed an inseparable bond with the woman, and then, after faking the occurrence of a car accident that injured her, the hoaxers killed her off from leukemia, leading to her reported death, which was of course faked.  T’eo claimed that he was too embarrassed to reveal to the press that he’d never met this woman, and so pretended that she was his real girlfriend.

There are some claims that T’eo became complicit in the hoax later on.  It’s all a bit murky, but it’s sad, and I’m not quite sure why this is getting so much press (see the story and a video here).  T’eo didn’t do anything wrong except mislead reporters about whether he’d ever met his “girlfriend,” and it shouldn’t affect his prospects to play pro football.

But that’s just background.  The point of this story is an exchange about the T’eo episode that occurred on a sports radio station, and was reported to me by reader Joe in an email (reproduced here with his permission). Welcome to America!

Dear Dr. Coyne: I hope this finds you well. I’m not sure whether anyone else has reported an interesting exchange that occurred at ~3:00 a.m. EST this morning between a caller and Amy Lawrence, one of the overnight hosts on CBS Sports Radio. I heard it as I lay awake fretting over some work-related matters. I won’t get the exchange exactly correct, but the essence is a follows, in the context of Manti Te’o’s non-existent girlfriend (I actually feel sorry for the young man):

Caller: I’ll probably get cut off, but I’m calling about Manti Te’o.

Ms. Lawrence: Go ahead.

Caller: It’s interesting that Manti Te’o girlfriend doesn’t exist. He and Notre Dame keep pushing God on us after every victory, and God doesn’t exist either.

Ms. Lawrence (cutting him off): That’s it! You can’t come on this show and offend all of the listeners who believe in God!

I was too tired to get up and call, and I probably wouldn’t have made it past the screening in any case.

Ms. Lawrence seemed to have missed the point that many of us are offended by having God thrown at us in every conceivable context. It reminded me of when I lived in Boulder and Craig Morton was the Broncos’ QB [QB = quarterback]. Whenever they won, he’d thank Jesus for being there with him during the game—especially when the game was played in snow and bitter cold in Mile High Stadium I couldn’t help but think that anyone who is omnipotent would have been in Miami watching the Dolphins.

Anyway, Teo is a terrific defensive player, and a sure bet for an early selection in the pro football draft. Here are some highlights of his playing for Notre Dame (his jersey number is 5):

Maru’s sense of snow

January 20, 2013 • 4:57 am

Yesterday we saw one tabby’s first encounter with snow, and the video below apparently documents a similar experience of the World’s Most Famous Cat: the tubby, box-inhabiting Japanese tabby Maru:

Our boy seems to have put on some weight in the last year! Those of you who have followed Maru will be familiar with his blue raincoat and harness, the latter of which is never fastened to anything and appears to function much like Linus’s blanket.

A helpful post at BuzzFeed tells us what to watch for:

The important things about this video:

1. Maru’s little hoodie.
2. Maru when he’s standing up by the fence in his hoodie at 0:10 and totally looks like a little person.
3. A closer look at Maru’s little hoodie.
4. What does Maru think about when Maru thinks about snow?
5. Maru’s careful stepping.
6. At 1:37 when you can tell that Maru feels like he’s on a protected island and the snow is sharks.
7. Maru investigating a tiny snowman.
8. Remember when Maru was wearing a little hoodie?

Quote of the day: Walter Kaufmann religion versus reason

January 19, 2013 • 2:34 pm

This is the last quote I’ll put up from Walter Kaufmann’s magnificent book Critique of Religion and Philosophy. This one, from pp.  220-221, is on the incompatibility between religion and reason. (I don’t agree with the first sentence of the third paragraph if by it Kaufmann is agreeing to some extent with religion’s claim that we can know things about the universe without using empirical methods.)

In one way, morality will soon go the way of astronomy, physics, and biology:  to be sure, it will not become a science; but Christians, too, will soon concede the need for rational discussion of moral questions as well as the relevance of observation—and then Christianity will adopt the position that morality is not of ultimate significance. Today, some Christians may still object: if morality is not of ultimate significance, what is? But it is far from self-evident that rules about permissible and impermissible sexual relations should be more crucial for religion than whether the earth revolves around the sun or whether man is a cousin of the gorilla.

Reason and observation alone will never tell us what to do and how to live; whom, if anybody, we should marry; or how many, if any, children we should want. But it does not follow that religion must answer these questions. Nor does it minimize the crucial distinction between informed and uninformed decisions or between responsible and irresponsible choices.

Christianity has been right in insisting on the limitations of reason and observation; but it has vastly exaggerated them while failing to recognize its own limitations: again and again it has claimed competence in areas where it had none. And from the very beginning it has conceived itself as an enemy of reason and worldly wisdom; it has exerted itself to impede the development of reason, belittled the achievements of reason, and gloated over the setbacks of reason.

In principle, many outstanding Roman Catholic thinkers have maintained that reason and religion need not be enemies but could be complementary.  But the peace effected by Roman Catholicism was based on the enslavement of reason, upon its employment in the service of propositions which it was not allowed to question.  The vaunted synthesis of reason and faith depended on the stake. When the stake lost its tyrannical effectiveness, the revolve of reason and the long war between reason and faith came to dominate the intellectual history of the West for centuries.

Traditional Christianity has been deeply authoritarian in matters of truth. It has made a supreme virtue of unquestioning docility. Though Luther was initially opposed to authoritarianism, his truculent disparagement of reason drove him back into this tradition; for he soon discoverd that where conscience and conviction are supreme no safeguard remains against fanaticism, stupidity, and immorality. Many a modern Protestant has looked upon the later Luther with embarrassment, thinking: “What a falling off was there!” But it was not caprice that led to Lutheran authoritarianism: the issue on which Luther had staked his Reformation had been unsound. The dichotomy between authoritarianism and the anarchy of the supremacy of conscience is pernicious. But what alternative remains where reason and observation are ruled out of court?

atheism

Ceci n’est pas une fourmi

January 19, 2013 • 11:31 am

Nope not an ant, as photographer/entomologist Alex Wild explains (my emphasis):

The delicate build and sabre-like pedipalps of this Brazilian clubionid spider help it to mimic the painfully-stinging trap-jaw ants of the genus Odontomachus. Photo from Morretes, Paraná, Brazil.

clubionid1-M

What a great example of mimicry! Count the legs (I think one is missing, but there are clearly >6!).  I’m not sure which species they mimic, but here’s an Odontomachus brunneus (an ant!) from Wikipedia:

645px-Odontomachus_brunneus_worker

Two new books to consider

January 19, 2013 • 9:15 am

The Sunday New York Times Book Review always appears online on Saturday, and this week’s issue has reviews or blurbs about two books of interest.

The first is Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief by Lawrence Wright, reviewed by Michael Kinsley, editor at large at The New Republic.  You may remember Wright as the author of the Pulitzer-Prize-winning book The Looming Tower, which traces the roots of Islamic terrorism, and the 9/11 crashes, to the 1940s and the initial disaffection of one man with western mores considered heretical to Islam. (By the way, it’s a superb and engrossing book, showing clearly that what Al-Qaeda does now has its roots not in politics or territory, but in pure religion: the desire for Islamic hegemony.)

At any rate, Wright has now turned his sights on an equally dangerous topic: Scientology. (Remember that Scientology loves to harass and sue its critics.) I will surely be reading this book, for Scientology, officially classified by our government as a religion, enjoying all the tax benefits of, say Catholicism, is really a vicious cult with a “theology” so outré as to be laughable. (Of course all theologies are laughable when viewed through the lens of unfamiliarity.) Here’s some snippets of Kinsley’s review:

So what are poor thetans to do, where are they to go, when they find themselves between lives? Left to Venus or right to Mars? For sure, they can’t stay here. “The planet Earth, formerly called Teegeeack, was part of a confederation of planets under the leadership of a despot ruler named Xenu,” said Hubbard, who was a best-selling science fiction writer before he became the prophet of a new religion. To suppress a rebellion, Xenu tricked the confederations into coming in for fake income tax investigations. Billions of thetans were taken to Teegeeack (you remember: Earth), “where they were dropped into volcanoes and then blown up with hydrogen bombs.” Suffice it to say I’m not hanging around Earth next time I’m between lives.

Hubbard apparently could go on for hours — or pages — with this stuff. Wright informs us, as if it were just an oversight, that “Hubbard never really explained how he came by these revelations,” but elsewhere he says they came to him at the dentist’s office. Of the Borgia-like goings-on after Hubbard’s death in 1986, Wright says cheerfully, “Every new religion faces an existential crisis following the death of its charismatic founder.” He always refers to Scientology respectfully as “the church.”

But Wright’s book, “Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief,” makes clear that Scientology is like no church on Earth (or, in all probability, Venus or Mars either). The closest institutional parallel would be the Communist Party in its heyday: the ruthless struggles for power, the show trials and forced confessions (often false); the paranoia (often justified); the determination to control its members’ lives completely (the key difference, you will recall, between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, according to the onetime American ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick); the maintenance of something close to prison camps where dissenters, would-be defectors and power-struggle rivals were incarcerated in deplorable conditions for years and punished if they tried to escape; what the book describes as mysterious deaths and disappearances; and so on.

. . . All this was going on under the nose of Tom Cruise, who, according to Wright, allowed Scientology’s leaders to pimp for him (no, no: all women), among other favors. Young women were told that they had been chosen for a “special program” that would require they drop their boyfriends. But the fish that got away, Scientologists believed, was Steven Spielberg. He told Haggis that Scientologists “seem like the nicest people,” and [director Paul] Haggis responded that “we keep all the evil ones in the closet,” which was close enough to being true that Haggis was in hot water with the Scientology powers-that-be. But he didn’t quit.

Kinsley picks out some flaws in Wright’s book, like his failure to explain Scientology terms when they come up, but concludes that “Going Clear is essential reading for thetans of all ­lifetimes.”

I’m fascinated with Scientology, for it shows us clearly what some people are looking for when they turn to “religion”—and it’s not always candles, songs, potted palms, the afterlife, or membership in community of people determined to good.

*****

Jared Diamond has also come out with a new book, The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Lean from Traditional Societies?, which was given a mixed review by David Brooks in last week’s NYT Sunday book review. Today, in “By the Book,” Diamond is interviewed by an unnamed interlocutor about The World Until Yesterday and various booky topics. It’s quite revealing: Diamond talks about his favorite books as an adult and child, the book he’d recommend that President Obama read, and the last book that made him cry. I found the following Q&A intriguing, for I’ve read Primo Levi’s book and thought it stunningly good:

What was the last truly great book you read?

Primo Levi, “If This Is a Man” (original, “Se Questo È un Uomo,” 1947). At one level, Levi’s book is about how as a young Italian Jewish chemist joining the resistance during World War II, he was captured, sent to Auschwitz, and survived. At another level, the book is about our everyday life issues, magnified: the life-and-death consequences of chance, the problem of evil, the impossibility of separating one’s moral code from surrounding circumstances, and the difficulties of maintaining one’s sanity and humanness in the presence of injustice and bad people. Levi dealt with these issues and was lucky, with the result that he survived Auschwitz and went on to become one of the greatest authors (both of nonfiction and fiction) of postwar Italy. But he survived at a price. One of the prices, the loss of his religious beliefs, he summarized as follows: “I must say that the experience of Auschwitz for me was such as to sweep away any remnants of the religious education that I had had. . . . Auschwitz existed, therefore God cannot exist. I find no solution to that dilemma. I seek a solution, but I don’t find it.”

I love Levi’s writing, and was so sad when he died in 1987, perhaps by suicide.  Beside “If This is a Man,” I’d highly recommend “The Periodic Table” (Levi was a chemist as well as a writer), which was voted by the Royal Institution as the best science book ever written, ahead of even On the Origin of Species (I’d contest that!).

Just FYI, here is the list of the Royal Institution’s winners:

The shortlist

Primo Levi The Periodic Table
Konrad Lorenz King Solomon’s Ring
Tom Stoppard Arcadia
Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene

Other nominations

James Watson The Double Helix
Bertolt Brecht The Life of Galileo
Peter Medawar Pluto’s Republic
Charles Darwin Voyage of the Beagle
Stephen Pinker The Blank Slate
Oliver Sacks A Leg to Stand On

“Arcadia,” while a great play, is a bizarre choice, for it’s not really a science book. I’d put Darwin as #1, purely for its importance in transforming human thought.

A Gedankenexperiment on free will

January 19, 2013 • 5:02 am

You’re a philosopher with an interest and expertise in science, have followed the latest discoveries in neuroscience, and realize that the idea of contracausal free will is long dead.  You see that people’s choices are completely determined by their genes and environments (internal and external), and that, save for quantum indeterminacy, people could not have chosen otherwise when making any decision. In other words, all the religious people and laypeople who think that they have classical contracausal free will are wrong.

What do you do? (Choose one.)

a). Realizing that physical determinacy has profound implications for punishment and moral responsibility (after all, our justice system must take note, as it already does to some extent, of the fact that a criminal could not have chosen otherwise when doing a crime; and how is one “morally” responsible if one can’t do otherwise?), you ponder and then write about what should be done in the light of neuroscience, suggesting reforms of the penal system and new ways to think about “moral responsibility.”

b). You spend time concocting new definitions of “free will” to replace the ghost-in-the-machine “contracausal” free will that no longer holds.

In my view, choice a). is eminently worthwhile, while choice b). is a complete waste of time. I am mystified that most philosophers choose b).

Caturday felid double-header: first snow and dunking

January 19, 2013 • 4:39 am

What happens when a cat who has never seen snow suddenly encounters it?  See for yourself in a video that went up just yesterday. There are cryptic notes on YouTube:

After being sent home from work the first thing I did on getting home was to check outside the back door to see if there were any cat paw prints. There weren’t, so I thought I’d introduce Fletcher to the snow and film the results..

And here’s a dunking cat who surely belongs in the NBA (for those overseas, that’s the National Basketball Association):

h/t SGM, Su

Two animal vids for Friday: baby fox rescue and hiding spider

January 18, 2013 • 2:54 pm

I don’t know how this kit got his head wedged in so firmly into the can, but he’s lucky these nice people came along.  The YouTube description is this:

Animal-rescuers from Leatherhead’s Wildlife Aid Foundation (WAF) have saved the life of a fox cub that had got its head stuck in a tin can.

And, a spider (with amusing narration) trying to hide itself. Be sure to watch to the end:

h/t: docatheist, Su