Great nature photos: 50 entries in National Geographic’s 2012 photo contest

September 25, 2012 • 10:31 am

Alert reader Michael called my attention to a selection of fifty fantastic photos submitted to this year’s National Geographic photo contest; they’re displayed at The Atlantic. It was hard to choose just seven of these to show you, so go over to the Atlantic and see all of them. Almost every one is a gem.  (If you want to submit your own photo to Nat. Geo., there’s still time: the deadline is November 30.)

You should definitely click to enlarge them.

This one is stunning:

Yosemite Valley at Dusk: A mist had settled over Yosemite Valley, as automobiles passed through, headlights illuminated the fog. (© Phil Hawkins/National Geographic Photo Contest)
Chaos: A huge flock of Red-billed Queleas flies in to drink at the same time as an African Elephant in Tsavo National Park, Kenya. (© Antero Topp/National Geographic Photo Contest)

Don’t throw stones at leopards!  I have no idea whether the guy was badly injured (it looks as if the cat is biting his neck), but I bet they shot the leopard:

Man and Animal Conflict: A Leopard attacks a forest department employee, after the man threw a stone toward the leopard in an abandoned construction site in Limbu Village in Siliguri in West Bengal, India. (© Salil Bera/National Geographic Photo Contest)
The Explosion! The subject’s name is Busaba, a well cared for Indochinese Tigress whose home is at Khao Kheow Open Zoo, Thailand. I had taken many portraits of Busaba previously and it was becoming more and more difficult to come up with an image that appeared any different to the others. Which is why I took to observing her more carefully during my visits in the hope of capturing something of a behavioral shot. The opportunity finally presented itself while watching Busaba enjoying her private pool then shaking herself dry. In all humility I have to say that Mother Nature smiled favorably on me that day! (© Ashley Vincent/National Geographic Photo Contest)

And a somewhat happier felid:

With a Couple of Jovian and Lunar Lights: Jupiter and the Moon light up the sky above a rock formation near Kitaibaraki City, Japan. (© Dr. Akira Takaue/National Geographic Photo Contest)
Jump: Two squirrels were playing in the warm afternoon in the Penitencia Creek County Park in San Jose, California. (© Chih-Hung Kao/National Geographic Photo Contest)
Atlantic Spotted Dolphins having an underwater chat: These three Atlantic Spotted Dolphins were acting playful for a few minutes so I swam over to join in. When I got close the dolphins came together as if they were going to discuss my presence. One of them seemed to say something then they did a little dance and were on their way. Amazing animals, I felt very lucky to capture the moment. Photo taken on White Sand Ridge on Little Bahama Bank, Bahamas. (© John Gaskell/National Geographic Photo Contest)

A Sokal-style hoax by an anti-religious philosopher

September 25, 2012 • 5:49 am

I’m a big fan of Dr. Maarten Boudry, a Belgian philosopher who’s a research fellow in the Department of Philosopy & Moral Sciences of Ghent University.  Boudry has spent a lot of time showing that religion and science are incompatible, attacking the distinction between “metaphysical naturalism” and “methodological naturalism” (a distinction much beloved by accommodationists), and generally pwning “Sophisticated Theologians™.”

You can find my earlier discussions of Boudry’s work here, here and here, and, if you’re familiar with the unctuous theologian Alvin Plantinga, be sure to read Boudry’s new review of Plantinga’s book Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Boudry’s review is free online, starting on p. 21 of the latest newsletter from The International History, Philosophy and Science Working Group.

But today I’m presenting something else: a real Sokal-style hoax that Boudry has perpetrated. He informed me yesterday that he had submitted a fake, post-modernish and Sophisticated-Theological™ abstract to two theology conferences:

By the way, I thought you might find this funny. I wrote a spoof abstract full of theological gibberish (Sokal-style) and submitted it to two theology conferences, both of which accepted it right away. It got into the proceedings of the Reformational Philosophy conference. See Robert A. Maundy (an anagram of my name) on p. 22 of the program proceedings.

To save you the trouble of downloading it, I reproduce below, with Boudry’s permission, “Maundy’s” abstract. Note that he made up a college, too, but the quotation from John Haught is real.

The Paradoxes of Darwinian Disorder. Towards an Ontological Reaffirmation of Order and Transcendence.
Robert A. Maundy,  College of the Holy Cross, Reno, Nevada

In the Darwinian perspective, order is not immanent in reality, but it is a self-affirming aspect of reality in so far as it is experienced by situated subjects. However, it is not so much reality that is self-affirming, but the creative order structuring reality which manifests itself to us. Being-whole, as opposed to being-one, underwrites our fundamental sense of locatedness and particularity in the universe. The valuation of order qua meaningful order, rather than order-in-itself, has been thoroughly objectified in the Darwinian worldview. This process of de-contextualization and reification of meaning has ultimately led to the establishment of ‘dis-order’ rather than ‘this-order’. As a result, Darwinian materialism confronts us with an eradication of meaning from the phenomenological experience of reality. Negative theology however suggests a revaluation of disorder as a necessary precondition of order, as that without which order could not be thought of in an orderly fashion. In that sense, dis-order dissolves into the manifestations of order transcending the materialist realm. Indeed, order becomes only transparent qua order in so far as it is situated against a background of chaos and meaninglessness. This binary opposition between order and dis-order, or between order and that which disrupts order, embodies a central paradox of Darwinian thinking. As Whitehead suggests, reality is not composed of disordered material substances, but as serially-ordered events that are experienced in a subjectively meaningful way. The question is not what structures order, but what structure is imposed on our transcendent conception of order. By narrowly focusing on the disorderly state of present-being, or the “incoherence of a primordial multiplicity”, as John Haught put it, Darwinian materialists lose sense of the ultimate order unfolding in the not-yet-being. Contrary to what Dawkins asserts, if we reframe our sense of locatedness of existence within a the space of radical contingency of spiritual destiny, then absolute order reemerges as an ontological possibility. The discourse of dis-order always already incorporates a creative moment that allows the self to transcend the context in which it finds itself, but also to find solace and responsiveness in an absolute Order which both engenders and withholds meaning. Creation is the condition of possibility of discourse which, in turn, evokes itself as presenting creation itself. Darwinian discourse is therefore just an emanation of the absolute discourse of dis-order, and not the other way around, as crude materialists such as Dawkins suggest.

I defy you to understand what he’s saying, but of course it appeals to those who, steeped in Sophisticated Theology™, love a lot of big words that say nothing but somehow seem to criticize materialism while affirming the divine. It doesn’t hurt if you diss Dawkins a couple of times, either.

This shows once again the appeal of religious gibberish to the educated believer, and demonstrates that conference organizers either don’t read what they publish, or do read it and think that if it’s opaque then it must be profound.

Boudry: My hero!

CNN discusses Hell, for crying out loud

September 25, 2012 • 4:42 am

I can’t believe that this exchange of views—”Different takes: should we abandon idea of hell?“—showed up on the CNN “Belief” blog.  There’s no substance or novelty here. Well, I guess one doesn’t expect so much of that on religion pages, but most of this exchange is is simply hellfire-and-brimstone preaching by a pastor.

First there’s a short take by Frank Schaeffer, a “New York Times bestselling author” and a member of the Orthodox Church. He pushes the view that Christianity is merciful and nonretributive:

What most people don’t know is that there’s another thread running through both Christianity and Islam that is far more merciful than the fundamentalists’ take on salvation, judgment and damnation.

. . . The other equally ancient view, going right back into the New Testament era, is of an all-forgiving God who in the person of Jesus Christ ended the era of scapegoat sacrifice, retribution and punishment forever.

As Jesus said on the cross: “Forgive them for they know not what they do.”

That redemptive view holds that far from God being a retributive God seeking justice, God is a merciful father who loves all his children equally. This is the less-known view today because fundamentalists – through televangelists and others – have been so loud and dominant in North American culture.

. . . We need “hell” like a hole in the head. It’s time for the alternative of empathetic merciful religion to be understood.

Yes, you can interpret the Bible either way so long as you ignore the huge swaths of Biblical text that threaten people with hell.  Yes, I do understand the “empathic alternative,” but has Schaeffer considered whether it’s the right one?  Apparently not.

But there’s something far worse, for Schaeffer is countered by Mark Driscoll, described as “founding pastor of Mars Hill Church” (a Christian megachurch) in Seattle, Washington. This is the stuff that shouldn’t be appearing on CNN pages, for it’s just a sermon, one that could have been preached by Jonathan Edwards in 18th century New England.  A taste of Driscoll:

As a pastor, my job is to tell the truth. Your job is to make a decision.

Well, he certainly pulls no punches, and implicitly brands Schaeffer a liar. I’m not sure that I don’t prefer Driscoll’s honesty to Schaeffer’s mealymouthed metaphorizing.  But Driscoll then presents his “truth”:

What does Jesus say about hell?

Jesus was emphatically clear on the subject of hell. He alone has risen from death and knows what awaits us on the other side of this life. A day of judgment is coming when all of us — even you — will rise from our graves and stand before him for eternal sentencing to either worshiping in his kingdom or suffering in his hell.

The Bible could not be clearer: “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”

These are not just obscure Bible verses. In fact, Jesus talks about hell more than anyone else in Scripture. Amazingly, 13% of his sayings are about hell and judgment, and more than half of his parables relate to the eternal judgment of sinners.

Keep in mind that Jesus’ words come in the context of the rest of Scripture, which says that God “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Furthermore, he “is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”

Given that, it’s amazing that his next line is this:

God is far more loving, kind and patient with his enemies than we are with our enemies.

Really? I wouldn’t wish my worst enemy an eternity of immolation in molten sulfur. (Later in the piece, Driscoll assures us that the Bible teaches that life in Hell is indeed eternal and that there’s no second chance on Judgment Day.)

Driscoll goes on with his sermon, showing us the loophole:

Am I going to hell?

The good news is that the closing verses of the Bible say, “Come!” Everyone is invited to receive the free gift of God’s saving grace in Jesus. Jesus is God become a man to reconcile mankind to God.

He lived the sinless life we have not lived, died a substitutionary death on the cross for our sins. He endured our wrath, rose to conquer our enemies of sin and death, and ascended to heaven where he is ruling as Lord over all today. He did this all in love.

The stark reality is this: either Jesus suffered for your sins to rescue you from hell, or you will suffer for your sins in hell. These are the only two options and you have an eternal decision to make.

My hope and prayer is that you would become a Christian.

Why is this stuff is appearing on CNN? Is this news at all, or even an airing of beliefs that has something novel in it, or reaches a rapprochement? Nope, it’s just pure proselytizing, and won’t enlighten anyone much less make them change their minds.

It amazes me that in the 21st century, Driscoll’s odious and repellent beliefs find their way onto the pages of a supposedly reputable news site.

But remember, 50% of Americans “absolutely believe in hell” and around 70% believe in hell, but not so absolutely.

Catnip Madness!

September 24, 2012 • 12:28 pm

If you’re of a certain age (and perhaps even young folks are included), you’ll know of the famous anti-marijuana movie “Reefer Madness” (1937; watch the whole thing here). Although that movie was dead serious in its ludicrous portrayal of the dangers of weed, people of my generation used to toke up and watch the thing completely baked, howling with laughter (and eating).

Here’s the new feline equivalent, appropriately matched (and cinematically degraded) to resemble the earlier film: “Catnip: Egress to Oblivion?” Make sure that your cats watch it!!!!

(It’s the brainchild of Jason Willis.)

h/t: Michael

Another creationist drops by to show that there’s no evidence for evolution

September 24, 2012 • 10:15 am

About ten days ago I got this comment from “Steve” (obviously not one of the “evolution Steves”) about my July 9 post “What would disprove evolution?” That one listed a number of conceivable observations that could be seen as countering the existence of evolution, though none of them had ever been been made.

I offer Steve’s comment as another specimen of the mindset of creationists, and of their ignorance of biology. It seems to be a willful ignorance, since it’s easily dispelled with about ten minutes of Googling.

I have one more of these in the series, a post from yet a third creationist asserting that humans didn’t evolve. 

Here’s Steve on what would disprove evolution:

What would disprove it? How about the fact that it’s never been observed!?!? Genetic variance within one species is just that. Never has science observed one species produce another species. The fossil record disproves it. You don’t find two legged animals with no arms. You don’t find giraffes with 3 foot long necks. And here’s the biggest proof that evolution is a pipe dream. They say we evolved from this to this to this to this (e.g. bacteria to fish to land animal to human, or something stupid like that). Ever find it interesting that there are no species around that link the apes to humans? If we evolved from apes, then why are apes still around, but all the intermediate species between ape and man not? Evolution says that at some point, a particular species evolved into another one, but that the original species still went on. (In other words, we still see bacteria, fish, etc….they didn’t all evolve to the higher form). So what happened to all the cave men, neanderthals, etc. that we supposedly evolved from? Why do they not exist, yet all these other species in the chain still do? Face it, the whole theory of evolution is basically give something a billion years to happen, and it will happen. That’s not science, it’s a foolish belief that one must adhere to in the absence of a belief in God. There is no way you can objectively look at the complexity of humans and say it just happened. How did the eye know that it needed to generate an optic nerve? How did the brain know that it had to make room for this optic nerve and learn how to process its signals? How did the skull know it had to evolve two holes in it to allow for the eye? Geesh. A little common sense and you realize that all these systems had to work together or be created at once for them to exist at all. Evolution is a substitute for religion for those who refuse to acknowledge that we were created by a superior intelligent being who must be laughing at the supposed intelligence of those who say that this is all just one big cosmic happenstance. I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution.

Just a few responses:

  • We have plenty of examples of speciation occurring in “real time”, via polyploidy in plants.  I document this in WEIT.  There are also fossil examples of lineages splitting, sometimes, as in marine protists, on a very fine scale. This is also discussed in WEIT.  There are other examples of “real-time” speciation on the Berkeley Understanding Evolution site.  And at this very moment Peter and Rosemary Grant are studying what looks for all the world like a new hybrid species of Galapagos finch on the island of Daphne. It apparently arose from a single female fertilized by a male of a different species, and the descendants of their offspring seems to be becoming an isolated hybrid group that mates inter se but not with either parental species.
  • No giraffes with three-foot necks? Sorry, Steve, but there is one:
The okapi (Okapia johnstoni), probably resembling an early giraffe.

No two legged animals with no arms? Here’s something pretty close:

Shuuvia deserti, a two-foot dinosaur with feathers.

Or how about a four legged animal with almost no legs?

Batrachoseps attenuatus, the California Slender Salamander. Is it on its way to becoming a legless amphibian?

Or a two-legged animal with no rear legs (they’re actually there, but are vestigial, and inside the body)? I also show an early stage in this transition:

  • Lack of intermediates linking humans and modern apes? Don’t be silly, Steve! Have a look at this photo from New Scientist:
Five skulls belonging to some ancestors and relatives of modern humans. From left to right, the skulls are: Australopithecus africanus (3-1.8 mya); Homo habilis (or H. rudolfensis, 2.1-1.6 mya); Homo erectus (or H. ergaster, 1.8-0.3 mya, although the ergaster classification is generally recognised to mean the earlier part of this period); a modern human (Homo sapiens sapiens) from the Qafzeh site in Israel, which is around 92,000 years old; and a French Cro-Magnon human from around 22,000 years ago (Image: Pascal Goetcheluck / SPL)
  • What kind of mindset does it take to say something like this: “How did the eye know that it needed to generate an optic nerve? How did the brain know that it had to make room for this optic nerve and learn how to process its signals? How did the skull know it had to evolve two holes in it to allow for the eye? Geesh. A little common sense and you realize that all these systems had to work together or be created at once for them to exist at all.”

This shows a complete lack of understanding of how natural selection works.  No organism “knows” what it has to do—that idea was dispelled over a century ago with the demise of Lamarckism. The other canard—that things have to be created because they couldn’t evolve in concert—we heard from our last creationist, Aaron.

And as for this:

Evolution is a substitute for religion for those who refuse to acknowledge that we were created by a superior intelligent being who must be laughing at the supposed intelligence of those who say that this is all just one big cosmic happenstance. I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution.

Let me rewrite it more accurately:

Religion is a substitute for a real understanding of the universe; it’s designed to console those who want a comforting Celestial Father who will keep them alive after they die. I accept evidence, and don’t have enough faith to believe in fairy tales such as God.

The chance that real evidence will convince Steve is, of course, nil. He’s blinded by faith. I offer his post as an example of what creationists are trying to tell me.

A frightening video of Muslim academics and scholars defending their faith

September 24, 2012 • 6:04 am

UPDATE:  Uncle Eric MacDonald has a longer take on these videos—and on Islam—in his new post, “Islam is not a respectable religion and it does not deserve our respect.” A snippet:

This is a religion that deserves to be criticised and condemned for its manifold offences against humanity. Its record of defending and upholding human rights is troublingly poor, and, if we take the so-called academics in the collection of video clips from which I took the clip above [JAC: same as the collection below] as any indication of the mind if Islam, then this is not something that is likely to end soon. Notice, for example, how many people in the audience clapped when the Muslim scholar highlighted above made his stupid remark that he would want to be stoned if he sinned. It simply took my breath away. That in itself was so chillingly disturbing that it demands enquiry. We have to remember that these are people who have come to live amongst us in the West, and that they are making claims for a kind of recognition and freedom from criticism which would imprison all of us.

____________

Here’s another enlightening video created and posted by neurosurgeon . (I’ve previously posted videos by Pararajasingham on 30 famous writers speaking about God, 20 academics and theologians speaking about their belief in God, and 100 academics explaining their atheism.)  This one speaks for itself, and frankly scares the hell out of me.

Here are the speakers, in order, taken from the YouTube description. The description of what the speaker says, in italics, is mine.

1. Yasir Qadhi is an American Muslim writer and Islamic instructor for the AlMaghrib Institute. He has written a number of books and spoken in lectures about Islam and contemporary issues on Muslims. Qadhi shows why the love of music and Islam are completely incompatible.  A true lover of the Qur’an, he says, finds music repugnant, and a true lover of music could never love the Qur’an. I’ll take music any day.

2. Hamza Yusuf Hanson is one of the most influential Islamic scholars in the West. He is co-founder of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, California, United States. Hanson says that Islam deplores not only homosexuality, but anal intercourse between males and females.

3. Dr Zakir Naik is an Islamic public speaker and writer on the subject of Islam and comparative religion. He is the founder and president of the Islamic Research Foundation (IRF). Before becoming a public speaker, he trained as a medical doctor.  I listened hard, but I really can’t make out what Naik is saying.

4. Yusuf al-Qaradawi is an Egyptian Islamic theologian. He is best known for his programme, ash-Shariah wal-Hayat broadcast on Al Jazeera, which has an estimated audience of 40 million worldwide. He has published more than 80 books, has received eight international prizes for his contributions to Islamic scholarship, and is considered one of the most influential scholars living today. al-Qaradawi’s message to women is “Don’t masturbate: it’s “risky” because you may break your hymen and expose yourself to ‘accusations’!”  This guy won international prizes and is influential???

5. Dr Bilal Philips is a contemporary Islamic scholar, teacher, speaker, and author, resident in Qatar. He appears on Peace TV, a 24-hour Islamic channel broadcasting to many countries around the world.  Dr. Philips reiterates the Islamic dictate that the depiction and worship of images of religious figures is “idolatry,” creating an impression that there is something greater than Allah himself.

6. Dr Zahid Ahmad Khan is an Islamic Public Speaker and president of the Kaza board of the Global satellite television network Muslim Television Ahmadiyya. Dr. Khan explains why pigs are worse than any other animal, so their consumption is forbidden by Islamic custom. For one thing, some pigs are gay!  And you become what you eat! This one is really funny.

7. Imam Karim Abuzaid is the imam of Colorado Muslim Society (CMS). He is a PhD candidate in Islamic Studies with the American Open University of Alexandria, VA. Abuzaid explains why it’s highly recommended under Qur’anic dictates for men to urinate sitting down, although under certain circumstances standing is permissible.

8. Dr Sumaya Alyusuf is director and headteacher of the King Fahad Academy in London. Dr. Alyusuf explains how the denigrations of Jews in the Qur’an are only metaphorical, and taken out of context.

9. Sheikh Assim Al-Hakeem is one of the prominent propagators of Islam in English in Saudi Arabia. He is active in delivering Islamic programs for the Media in both Arabic & English. Al-Hakeem tells us that a woman who rejects the sexual blandishments of her husband is sinful and cursed by the angels, for there is no legitimate reason for such rejection. The husband needs his “discharge” because he’s been tempted by other women all day, and any rejection of that “discharge” is unjustified. This is a pretty graphic portrayal of women in Islam as mere vessels for their husbands’ needs.

10. Professor Sherman A. Jackson is Professor of Near Eastern Studies, Visiting Professor of Law and Professor of Afro-American Studies at the University of Michigan. He received his PhD from the University of Pennsylvania and has authored several books. Jackson asserts that homosexuality is forbidden by the Qur’an.

11. Abdul Ghani Jahangeer is an Islamic scholar and head of the French desk of the Global satellite television network Muslim Television Ahmadiyya.  Jahangeer explains one unappreciated advantage of Islam: Muslims use one hand for eating and doing “clean” jobs, the other (the left, I believe), for cleaning one’s butt after defecating.  Thus, when a Muslim extends you his hand, you know it’s a clean one, but “the hand of a non-Muslim could have been anywhere.”

12. Dr Muhammad Wahdan is a lecturer on Islamic religious law at Al Azhar university in Egypt.  Here he defends female circumcision. You must listen to this one!

13. Uthman Badar is the Australian spokesman for the international Islamist group Hizb Ut- Tahrir, an international Sunni pan-Islamic political organisation. They are commonly associated with the goal of all Muslim countries unifying as an Islamic state. Here he engages in an one-on-one with Lawrence Krauss about religious law, and Krauss pwns him.

14. Haras Rafiq is co-founder and Executive Director of the Sufi Muslim Council in Britain. He is also a director of CENTRI, an organization focused on countering extremism at the operational level. Here Rafiq defends the practice of stoning women for adultery—but only if they ask to be stoned. Then it becomes okay.

15. Hussain Yee is a Malaysian national of Chinese descent, a scholar of Islam and former Buddhist who lectures regularly in the Asia-Pacific region. His lectures on Islam are frequently aired on Peace TV. Yee decries women who dress like men and men who dress like women (e.g., wearing an earring).

16. Imam Shabir Ally is the president of the Islamic Information & Dawah Centre International in Toronto, Canada. He is a Muslim activist, preacher and speaker on Islam and Muslims. He is also a debater engaging in regular debates in different parts of the world.  Taking up evolution, Ally maintains that the theory of evolution does not say that humans descended from apes, while admitting that humans and modern apes had a common ancestor.

17. Dr Abdul Majid Ali is a minister of religion in the UK and a religious teacher who initially gained prominence within the Middle East. He studied under the guidance of Sh. Bilal Philips, one of the most respected scholars in the world.  Dr. Ali maintains that men can be allowed to marry at age 12, and even a girl of 9 can be a wife if she is “physically ready to handle that relationship.”

18. Dr Israr Ahmed was a Pakistani Islamic theologian followed particularly in South Asia and also among the South Asian diaspora in the Middle East, Western Europe, and North America. He is the founder of the Tanzeem-e-islami, an off-shoot of the Jamaat-e-Islami. He spent more than 50 years teaching Quraan and preaching Islam. Dr. Ahmed explains why drawings of humans and animals are forbidden by Islam, and photography only under special circumstances that furthers the needs of the government or the faith.

19. Kamal El Mekki is a well-known Islamic speaker and lecturer in the United states. He has studied with numerous scholars from around the world and served as the Imam of George Mason University and has also served as a radio talk show host for a large Islamic radio station in America. El Meeki explains why music is pernicious to Muslims, and that rather than use it to calm down or soothe their nerves they should instead run and supplicate themselves to Allah.

20. Shaykh Haitham al-Haddad is a London-based Islamic scholar. He sits on the boards of advisors for Islamic organisations in the United Kingdom, including the Islamic Sharia Council, and is the chair and operations advisor for the Muslim Research and Development Foundation. He is also a trustee for the Muslim Research and Development Foundation in the United Kingdom. al-Haddad explains why stoning is an appropriate punishment for certain crimes, including adultery. He maintains that those people who get stoned actually want to be stoned! He says he receives many requests from Western women who have committed adultery, asking how they can find their way to a Muslim country so that they may be stoned to death. Yeah, right!

What is most frightening—and enlightening—about this, is that it shows how sincerely these people—eloquent and educated people—actually believe in the ludicrous dictates of Islam.  That’s often forgotten by those who excuse terrorists by claiming that the terrorists’ motivations are not religious but political.  See what these people really believe! (Sam Harris is always asking us to pay attention to this.)

It is hard to believe that educated people can believe in the claptrap uttered by these 19 men and one woman, but it’s palpably obvious that they do.  It would be hard to find, say, 20 academic Christians or Jews who would defend stoning or female genital mutilation.

h/t: Michael

The 2012 IgNobel Prizes

September 24, 2012 • 4:14 am

According to the BBC Science & Environment site, the 20012 Ig®Nobel Prizes were recently awarded (IgNobel site here). As you may know, these are satirical prizes that honor the most bizarre-sounding research of the year:

Thursday’s Ig Nobel ceremony at Harvard’s Sanders Theatre was the 22nd since the American science humour magazine, Annals of Improbable Research, started the event.

The gala is always attended by real Nobel Laureates, who are tasked with handing out the prizes. Recipients get 60 seconds to make an acceptance speech. If they run over, a young girl will start to shout “boring”. Another tradition is for everyone in the theatre to throw paper planes.

Here’s the list of winners. I must say that I’m distressed to see Frans de Waal (whose work I like a lot) on the list for Anatomy; although the nature of his work sounds funny, it may be valuable to see the way chimps recognize each other in groups.  Ditto for the Medicine prize, as people’s colons have been blown out by a combination of a spark in the apparatus and intestinal gas (methane).

But the Literature prize is right on.

Psychology Prize: Anita Eerland and Rolf Zwaan (Netherlands) and Tulio Guadalupe (Peru/Russia/Netherlands) for their study Leaning to the Left Makes the Eiffel Tower Seem Smaller.

Peace Prize: The SKN Company (Russia) for converting old Russian ammunition into new diamonds.

Acoustics Prize: Kazutaka Kurihara and Koji Tsukada (Japan) for creating the SpeechJammer – a machine that disrupts a person’s speech by making them hear their own spoken words at a very slight delay.

Neuroscience Prize: Craig Bennett, Abigail Baird, Michael Miller, and George Wolford (US) for demonstrating that brain researchers, by using complicated instruments and simple statistics, can see meaningful brain activity anywhere – even in a dead salmon.

Chemistry Prize: Johan Pettersson (Sweden/Rwanada [sic]) for solving the puzzle of why, in certain houses in the town of Anderslöv, Sweden, people’s hair turned green.

Literature Prize: The US Government General Accountability Office for issuing a report about reports about reports that recommends the preparation of a report about the report about reports about reports.

Physics Prize: Joseph Keller (US), Raymond Goldstein (US/UK), Patrick Warren and Robin Ball (UK) for calculating the balance of forces that shape and move the hair in a human ponytail. Prof Keller was additionally given an Ig for work he contributed to on non-drip teapots in 1999 but for which he had been wrongly overlooked at the time.

Fluid Dynamics Prize: Rouslan Krechetnikov (US/Russia/Canada) and Hans Mayer (US) for studying the dynamics of liquid-sloshing, to learn what happens when a person walks while carrying a cup of coffee.

Anatomy Prize: Frans de Waal (Netherlands/US) and Jennifer Pokorny (US) for discovering that chimpanzees can identify other chimpanzees individually from seeing photographs of their rear ends.

Medicine Prize: Emmanuel Ben-Soussan and Michel Antonietti (France) for advising doctors who perform colonoscopies how to minimise the chance that their patients will explode.

The prizes were awarded yesterday at Sanders Theater of Harvard University in this long (>2 hr) ceremony

Salman Rushdie’s new book, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s reaction

September 23, 2012 • 11:53 am

First, read about the damn crows!

Rusdie’s new book, Joseph Anton: a Memoir, was released just four days ago, and is already #13 on Amazon’s best-seller list (“Joseph Anton” was Rushdie’s pseudonym when he was in hiding.) You can read a longish sample here; curiously, it’s written in the third person although it’s not fiction.

The always critical Michiko Kakutani at the New York Times gave it a generally positive review, and the NYT also published an interview with Rushdie about the book:

Now, with “Joseph Anton,” Mr. Rushdie has written a memoir that chronicles those years in hiding — a memoir, coming after several disappointing novels, that reminds us of his fecund gift for language and his talent for explicating the psychological complexities of family and identity. Although this volume can be long-winded and self-important at times, it is also a harrowing, deeply felt and revealing document: an autobiographical mirror of the big, philosophical preoccupations that have animated Mr. Rushdie’s work throughout his career, from the collision of the private and the political in today’s interconnected world to the permeable boundaries between life and art, reality and the imagination.

If Rushdie doesn’t get the Nobel Prize within a few years, it will be an injustice. But of course if he does, Muslims will riot throughout the world, and Sweden will be endangered.

And the fatwa, of course, has nothing to do with politics; it’s clearly a backlash against Western oppression.

Apropos, Newsweek, via The Daily Beast, has a nice piece by Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Rushdie’s fatwa and the recent Muslim unrest. She, of course, also suffered mightily from being an apostate.

The Muslim men and women (and yes, there are plenty of women) who support—whether actively or passively—the idea that blasphemers deserve to suffer punishment are not a fringe group. On the contrary, they represent the mainstream of contemporary Islam. Of course, there are many Muslims and ex-Muslims, in Libya, Egypt, and elsewhere, who unambiguously condemn not only the murders and riots, as well as the idea that dissenters from this mainstream should be punished. But they are marginalized and all too often indirectly held responsible for the very provocation. In the age of globalization and mass immigration, such intolerance has crossed borders and become the defining characteristic of Islam.

Much of her piece, which I highly recommend, recounts her own experience hiding from society for fear of being murdered. Her “crimes” against Islam started when she fought against the demands of Dutch Muslims that the age of marriage be lowered from 18 to 15, and suggested that Muhamed’s acts might be criminal under Dutch law.

And then it got worse. Many of you will remember this horrible incident:

But that was nothing compared with what happened when I made a short film with Theo van Gogh (titled Submission) that drew attention to the direct link between the Quran and the plight of Muslim women. In revenge for this act of free thinking, Mohammed Bouyeri, a 26-year-old Dutch-Moroccan man, murdered van Gogh—shooting him eight times and stabbing him with two knives, one of which pinned a note to his body threatening the West, Jews, and me. As he was dying, my friend Theo reportedly asked his assailant, “Can’t we talk about this?” It’s a question that has haunted me ever since, often in bed at night. One side proposing a conversation; the other side thrusting a blade.

Now I knew what it was like to be a combatant in the clash of civilizations. Having renounced Islam and openly criticized its political manifestations, I was condemned to a life cordoned off from the rest of society. I quickly learned the drill leading up to any public meeting or event. “Follow me,” the agent on duty would bark out, half-request and half-order, opening the doors to the armored car, doors I was not allowed to touch. Then a fast-paced walk, more like a march: a dash into basements and cellars; down dark corridors and elevators; through greasy kitchens and laundry rooms full of startled workers looking up, frozen in place. Agents whispering into wrists, elevators opening at the perfect moment, and I would be ushered into the occasion I was supposed to attend: a meeting of politicians; a town hall gathering; a reading; an intimate birthday party.

Ali then predicts a slow demise of Islamic states after religion gains power:

Utopian ideologies have a short lifespan. Some are bloodier than others. As long as Islamists were able to market their philosophy as the only alternative to dictatorship and foreign meddling, they were attractive to an oppressed polity. But with their election to office they will be subjected to the test of government. It is clear, as we saw in Iran in 2009 and elsewhere, that if the philosophy of the Islamists is fully and forcefully implemented, those who elected them will end up disillusioned. The governments will begin to fail as soon as they set about implementing their philosophy: strip women of their rights; murder homosexuals; constrain the freedoms of conscience and religion of non-Muslims; hunt down dissidents; persecute religious minorities; pick fights with foreign powers, even powers, such as the U.S., that offered them friendship. The Islamists will curtail the freedoms of those who elected them and fail to improve their economic conditions.

. . . After the disillusion and bitterness will come a painful lesson: that it is foolish to derive laws for human affairs from gods and prophets. . . We must be patient. America needs to empower those individuals and groups who are already disenchanted with political Islam by helping find and develop an alternative.

I hope so. But Iran has been a malicious theocracy for 33 years, and even before that it was a dictatorship.  How many lives will be snuffed out while we work patiently for the demise of faith?