William Lane Craig argues that animals can’t feel pain

October 4, 2012 • 7:56 am

Last year the infamous theologian William Lane Craig debated philosopher Stephen Law, and made the extraordinary claim that many mammals can’t feel pain, or, if they do “feel” pain, then they aren’t aware that they feel pain. Only “the higher primates and human beings,” claims Craig (“higher” of course, is a scientifically inaccurate term), are aware that they feel pain.

But there’s no difference between feeling pain and being aware that you’re feeling pain. Pain is a “quale” (plural “qualia”)—a conscious and subjective sensation—which demands awareness, unless it’s simply a sensation that you have learned (or evolved) to avoid.  But if you’ve learned or evolved to avoid it because it’s unpleasant, then you are indeed aware of feeling pain! Finding a sensation unpleasant demands sufficient consciousness to experience qualia.

The reason Craig and others argue that animals don’t suffer is because it eliminates one of the vexing aspects of the theological problem of evil (theodicy): why do innocent animals (who haven’t sinned) suffer? If you claim that they don’t suffer, that part of the problem goes away. As Craig notes at the beginning of the video below:

“Even though animals feel pain, they’re not aware of it.. . Even though your dog and cat may be in pain, it really isn’t aware that of being in pain, and therefore it doesn’t suffer as you would when you are in pain.”

Craig sees this as a “tremendous comfort” for animal lovers like himself. That’s theology for you: simply make up whatever brings you comfort. Really, if you step on a cat’s tail, you don’t think it feels pain?

On Stephen Law’s website today, he posts a video in which a bunch of scientists rebut Craig. It’s pretty well established now that many species do experience pain as an unpleasant sensation. The video shows that Craig has simply lied about the biological facts.

The YouTube site notes:

All of the scientists who were featured in the movie were sent a preview copy and asked to let us know if they feel we had misquoted them or made any scientific errors. No instances were identified by them.

Many thanks to those that helped in the making of this movie.
Dr Anita Alvarez, Imperial College/UCL
Prof Stuart Firestein, Columbia University
Prof Joaquinn Fuster, UCLA
Prof Bruce Hood, Bristol University
Dr Lori Marino, Emory University
James Moskito, Great White Shark Adventures
Dr Diana Reiss, City University NY

Take a half hour and watch Law’s video.  It thoroughly debunks the odious Craig. And yet there are some readers of this site who greatly admire Craig (I usually don’t put up their posts).

An inordinate fondness for beetles

October 4, 2012 • 3:12 am

by Matthew Cobb

I spotted this drawing on Michael Bok’s Arthropoda blog. It shows Charlie Darwin riding a beetle, and a reproduction is currently on display at Down House (the original is held by Cambridge University Library).

Michael writes: “It was drawn by Darwin’s friend and classmate at Cambridge, Albert Way, in 1832. I think the drawing quite nicely speaks to Darwin’s enthusiasm for natural history, and especially beetle collecting, well before his historic voyage and academic achievements later in life.” The milestone appears to read ‘To Cambridge’.

Any coleopterophiles out there like to hazard a family-level ID?

The full page (marked by an annoying library stamp) includes another drawing of ‘Darwin on his hobby’ (a ‘hobby’ was both a pass-time and a “small or middle-sized horse; an ambling or pacing horse; a pony” (says the OED)). (In fact, hobby’ as a pass-time may be a later coinage – the online OED is unclear on this, and my OED is at home. Can any WEIT readers help?)

Cat with shadow cat

October 4, 2012 • 1:54 am

I know that some of you will look at this LOLcat and claim it was PhotoShopped, just as some of you claimed was the case of the famous tabby kitten that had “cat” written on its side. (I can’t find my post on that right now, but the cat’s owners wrote in and assured us that all was kosher, and it did turn out to be real.)

This is real, too:

If you have any doubts, go here; the cat is in Japan and so, of course, it gets its own website.  Perhaps those of you who read Japanese can tell us more.

Happy Nandaful life, cat!

h/t: Grania Spingies

Interview on Portuguese radio

October 4, 2012 • 1:06 am

Ana Gomes, a well-known broadcaster and science journalist in Portugal, interviewed me in Lisbon about my book, its relevance to the Portuguese (the book is being launched on Saturday in conjunction with a public talk I’m giving in Porto), and about my work on São Tomé (a former Portuguese colony). It’s to be broadcast on Friday on the Portuguese equivalent of NPR, with a Portuguese voice-over above my own voice. You can, however, hear just the English interview at this website.

As usual, I haven’t listened to it because I bridle at the sound of my voice, but it I do talk about my fly work a bit more than in most of my interviews.

The Portuguese have much less of a problem with evolution than Americans do, at least as far as I can tell by talking to people. Evolution is routinely taught in public schools and is not an issue.

Although Portugal is a pretty religious country, the religion is Catholicism. Since the Catholic Church officially accepts evolution, this may be the explanation. (Note, though, that 29% of American Catholics are dyed-in-the-wool creationists.)

The National Trust excises creationism at the Giant’s Causeway exhibit

October 3, 2012 • 9:35 am

A few months ago there was a mini-kerfuffle over the wording of the exhibit at the Visitor’s Centre at the Giant’s Causeway lava formation in Northern Ireland, an exhibit run by the National Trust (see here, here, here, and here for my reports).  Geologists date the formation as 50-60 million years old, but the exhibit at the Visitor’s Centre caved in to creationist pressure, saying this:

Creationists believe the stones, which emerged from the sea-bed following intense volcanic and geological activity 60 million years ago, were in fact formed around 4,500 years ago as a result of Noah’s Flood.

Many UK residents, and many of my readers, objected to this nod to creationism, though the creationist Caleb Foundation, which promoted that language, was pleased.  Tons of people wrote in to the National Trust, which promised last July to review of the creationist language. I and many of us were among these writers, and I think the strength of the opposition surprised the National Trust. They had to do something or they were going to look as if they were making concessions to opponents of science.

According to the BBC News, the National Trust’s decision has now come down, and it’s not going to make creationists happy:

A new piece of audio, approximately 20 seconds long, now replaces the previous recording.

. . . Previously the audio which accompanied the exhibit said that questions had been raised about the formation of the rocks.

“Young Earth Creationists believe that the earth was created some 6000 years ago,” it said. “This is based on a specific interpretation of the bible and, in particular, the account of creation in the book of Genesis,” it said.

“Some people around the world, and specifically here in Northern Ireland, share this perspective.”

The new audio now says there is a “clear understanding among scientists that the heat of the earth was the driving force behind the formation of the Giant’s Causeway”.

It adds that the earth is “far older than had previously been thought”.

“All the scientific evidence points to a volcanic origin for the columns of the Giant’s Causeway, around 60m years ago.

But they still couldn’t resist a tiny sop to creationists, for this language remains:

“However, not everyone agrees with the scientific view. There are some people who believe – often for religious reasons – that the earth was formed more recently: thousands of years ago rather than billions.”

Well, I suppose 99/100 of a cake is better than half a cake.  The “often for religious reasons” is, of course, a weasel phrase. Nobody believes in a young earth except for religious reasons!

The religious Caleb Foundation, who pretty much lost, nevertheless pronounces itself “broadly content with the Causeway review”:

“When the new Visitor Centre at the Giant’s Causeway was opened in July 2012, Caleb congratulated the National Trust on the inclusion of an audio exhibit which acknowledged both the legitimacy of the creationist position on the origins of the unique Causeway stones and the ongoing debate around this.

We were disappointed when the Trust decided to review the previously agreed wording in that exhibit as a result of pressure. We are also disappointed that the outcome of the review has led to a revision of the wording, but we are very pleased that the exhibit has not been removed, as demanded by some. Although we do not accept that all the scientific evidence points to a 60 million year time span, we note that the revised exhibit still retains an acknowledgement of the existence of an alternative viewpoint. The National Trust has therefore set a precedent for others to follow”.

Yes, but the precedent is the other way round: it says that science wins, and that opposition to a 5000-year-old Causeway is based purely on religion.

One can actually make a case that leaving in mention of the “alternative” view is not too bad, for that view is characterized as based not on science but on faith.  After all, one of the reasons I wrote WEIT was to dispel the creationist “alternative” view of life, and to do so I had to acknowledge its existence.

h/t: Adrian, Kieran, and Chris

What I ate yesterday

October 3, 2012 • 1:39 am

I’m taking lots of photos, but haven’t had time to download them or post properly.  But here’s what I ate and drank yesterday in Lisbon.

Mid-morning snack: in the area of Belém, where I visited the lovely Mosteiro dos Jerónimos (a World Heritage Site) and the Naval Museum, there’s a well-known place to get the ubiquitous Portugese pastry pastel de nata (custard tarts). The most famous store to get them in Lisbon is the Antiga Confeitaria de Belém, which has been serving the locals since 1837. There was a huge line outside waiting for the specialty, pastel de Belém.

I bypassed the line and took a seat, consuming two tarts and um galão (coffee with milk). The tarts were excellent: warm and especially good with a sprinkling of cinnamon from a handy shaker:

Back into town for a wander and a visit to the fantastic Igrega de São Roque, one of the few churches to survive the devastating Lisbon earthquake of 1755. It contains one of the most elaborate chapels I’ve ever seen: the chapel of St. John the Baptist, full of gold and with columns of lapis lazuli. It was constructed in the Vatican in 1742 and then, after the Pope celebrated Mass in it, dismantled and shipped to Portugal. I’ll have photos of it later.

But I felt thirsty after my wander, and so for only 1.35 Euros I procured a copa of the famous local cherry brandy, ginginha. I had mine “com” (with cherries). It was great (and sweet): just the pick-me-up I needed:

After a preprandial rest, we repaired to a famous local seafood restaurant for crustaceans and molluscs. It was jammed, but we had reservations. Here’s the ambiance (crowded!) and only a part of the seafood on offer:

We began with local raw ham, thinly sliced, with toasted and buttered bread:

My favorite seafood—percebes (in Spanish), or gooseneck barnacles: hard to collect, rare, and expensive, but oh so tasty! Sadly, I overexposed the photo. Oh well; this is The Remains of the Plate:

A luscious plate of baby clams in garlic-butter sauce with coriander:

And a HUGE crab, somewhat resembling the stone crabs of Florida, which had been thoughtfully disassembled. The roe and innards had been made into a delicious soup that filled the shell. Alongside that we got a huge plate of fresh shrimp (this restaurant, whose name escapes me, is famous for the freshness and quality of its seafood):

It was all washed down with vinho verde, the local “green wine,” which was light and refreshing. An estimable meal indeed.

Today I’m off to Porto, where, of course, I’ll visit the vintage port lodges as well as giving two talks. Vintage port and Sauternes are my favorite sweet wines, and I’ll have a full report.

Things are getting better

October 3, 2012 • 12:34 am

If you haven’t read Steve Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature, which clearly shows an improvement in the moral behavior of humanity over the last few hundred years, you should. The book is through, and, while long, pretty darn convincing.

For an equally heartening look at the improvement of lifespan and income (I presume income corrected for changes in the value of money) over the past 200 years, look at this enthusiastic and well-produced video. The speaker is Hans Rosling, a Swedish doctor and statistician, and is taken from a BBC television show:

In this spectacular section of ‘The Joy of Stats’ he tells the story of the world in 200 countries over 200 years using 120,000 numbers – in just four minutes. Plotting life expectancy against income for every country since 1810, Hans shows how the world we live in is radically different from the world most of us imagine.

A lot of the improvement in lifespan, which is such a precious achievement, comes from improvements in nutrition, public health, and science, perhaps in conjunction with improvements in morality that extend those benefits to poorer nations.  Not a day of lifespan has been added by religion.

h/t: Miss May

Michael Ruse disses new atheism again, whines about his mistreatment, and makes mistakes

October 2, 2012 • 10:39 am

In his new piece in the Guardian, “Why Richard Dawkins’ humanists remind me of a religion,” philosopher Michael Ruse once again likens New Atheism (and humanism) to religions, whines at length about the names he’s been called (and claims that he doesn’t  mind it!), and then makes two mistakes in one sentence. Here’s a screenshot of the latter before he fixes it:

Leaving aside the misconception that I have a “blog”, here are Ruse’s errors:

1.  I am not a disciple of Peter Hitchens. I am a fan of his late brother, Christopher Hitchens. Presumably Ruse knows that there’s a huge difference between these men—or does he?

2.  Ruse does not use the quote from Orwell that I applied to Ruse’s fatuous statements. The real quote, one that I’ve used several times, comes from Orwell’s “Notes on nationalism,” and is much better:

“One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.”

I have read a ton of Orwell—in fact, probably everything he ever wrote—and I don’t remember the quote that Ruse gives. It’s online as Orwell having said it, but I couldn’t find it in his own writing. In its “Orwell” section, Wikiquotes notes that it is misattributed:

“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”

  • Possibly a paraphrase of Bertrand Russell in My Philosophical Development (1959): “This is one of those views which are so absurd that only very learned men could possibly adopt them.” It is similar in meaning to the line “One has to belong to the intelligentsia…” from Notes on Nationalism (1945).

Really, Michael, can’t you or The Guardian check your facts? Peter ≠ Christopher, and please read your Orwell rather than Googling him. The quote I used is really very good, and applicable in many cases, such as when intellectuals  like you spew nonsense.

But those mistakes pale in comparison to how ridiculous Ruse’s Guardian piece is. It’s the usual flawed comparison between New Atheism and religious faith, combined with his customary extended whine about the horrid names he’s been called.  Here’s a snippet:

Humanism in its most virulent form tries to make science into a religion. It is awash with the intolerance of enthusiasm. For a start, there is the near-hysterical repudiation of religion. To quote Richard Dawkins:

“I think there’s something very evil about faith … it justifies essentially anything. If you’re taught in your holy book or by your priest that blasphemers should die or apostates should die – anybody who once believed in the religion and no longer does needs to be killed – that clearly is evil. And people don’t have to justify it because it’s their faith.”

In the caricaturing of “faith” as murderous fundamentalism, one hears echoes of the bloody and interminable Reformation squabbles between Protestants and Catholics. It is also of course to give help to the real enemy, those who turn their back fully on science as they follow their religion.

There are other aspects of the new atheist movement that remind me of religion. One is the adulation by supporters and enthusiasts for the leaders of the movement: it is not just a matter of agreement or respect but also of a kind of worship. This certainly surrounds Dawkins, who is admittedly charismatic.

What is palpably clear from Ruse’s writings is that he wishes he were that charismatic!  I guess science is a religion, too, because we have our heroes: people like Darwin, Pasteur, and Feynman.

Not only does Ruse fail to distinguish the Hitchens brothers, but he apparently can’t tell the difference between humanism and atheism.

I can’t bear to excerpt the part of the piece where Ruse bawls about how much of an atheist he is, and how much he dislikes religion, and yet despite his good work the new atheists still dump on him. (Perhaps, Michael, it’s because you spend so much time confecting dumb arguments to help religious people accept science.) I defy you to read that part without cringing.

Since Ruse is so sensitive about being called names, I’ll refrain from adding new epithets to the pile. His piece discredits itself, and though I’m told Ruse once did good work in philosophy, but it’s hard to retain much respect for the man after reading this latest essay.

h/t: James