Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
Is it kosher to make art out of meat? Apparently so, for here’s Vincent van Gogh’s classic painting, “Starry Night,” rendered in bacon:
You can find step-by-step instructions on how to make your own bacon painting here.
Despite the threats of violence from Muslims in her own country of England, and the fact that sharia law, in all its sexism and unfairness, is already being used to adjudicate cases there, Karen Armstrong wants us to refrain from criticizing Islam. In a new piece in the Guardian, “Prejudices about Islam will be shaken by this show” (the title refers to an exhibition at the British Museum about the hajj: the pilgrimage to Mecca), Armstrong argues that prejudice against Islam is severely misguided.
Ever since the Crusades, when Christians from western Europe were fighting holy wars against Muslims in the near east, western people have often perceived Islam as a violent and intolerant faith – even though when this prejudice took root Islam had a better record of tolerance than Christianity. Recent terrorist atrocities have seemed to confirm this received idea. But if we want a peaceful world, we urgently need a more balanced view. We cannot hope to win the “battle for hearts and minds” unless we know what is actually in them. Nor can we expect Muslims to be impressed by our liberal values if they see us succumbing unquestioningly to a medieval prejudice born in a time of extreme Christian belligerence.
Like Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, Sikhs and secularists, some Muslims have undoubtedly been violent and intolerant, but the new exhibition at the British Museum. . .
Note the comparison of present-day Muslims with those of other faiths, who are not currently as violent as Islam. And “secularists”? Are we really beheading people lately? Buddhists? There should be a name for the fallacy in which faiths with drastically different levels of violence and intolerance are held equal so long as any of their adherents are violent at all. And does she really believe that if we are more tolerant of Islamic threats, and stop publishing criticisms of their fatwas, their violence, and their ridiculous calls for death to those who publish cartoons or name teddy bears after the prophet, that Muslims will be so impressed by our “liberal values” that the violence will stop?
Islam is a religion not just of proselytizing, but of formalized calls of death to apostates and heretics. Buddhists and secularists don’t do that. The calls for jihad and conversion of everyone won’t stop because we espouse “liberal” values.
Amstrong then extols Muhamed for his peacefulness, especially in making the hajj, which does indeed require peaceful behavior: Muslims must surrender their weapons, for example, before entering Mecca. Indeed, Muhamed is made out as an apostle of peace and nonviolence: a latter-day Gandhi. Odd for a man who himself laid siege to Mecca, killed many Meccans, and then turned against Medina. Armstrong, of course, doesn’t mention that the very city in which Muhamed made the hajj is the city he attacked.
As usual, Armstrong completely distorts the Qur’an to make it seem like a document of peace:
Clearly the Qur’an did not despise Jews and Christians; this affinity with “the people of the book” was also central to the Muslim cult of Mecca. The Arabs firmly believed that they, too, were children of Abraham, because they were the descendants of his eldest son Ishmael – a regional view shared by the Bible. . .
The Qur’an still urged Muslims to respect the people of the book and revere their prophets, but decreed that instead of facing Jerusalem when they prayed, as hitherto, they should turn towards the Ka’bah built by Abraham.
This is about as far from the truth as possible: the Qur’an calls Jews “apes” and “pigs” and condemns “followers of the book” (i.e., Christians and Jews) to hell. Here are a few verses from the Qur’an that I’ve published before, and there are many other verses full of hatred and bigotry. If you don’t believe that, see this annotated Qur’an.
(5:72) They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. … Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.
(9:29) – Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
(9:30) The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah “; and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah .” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?
Armstrong ends up with a lachrymose call for comity:
But the British Museum’s beautiful presentation of the hajj can help us understand how the vast majority of the world’s Muslims understand their faith. Socrates, founder of the western rational tradition, insisted that the exercise of reason required us constantly and stringently to question received ideas and entrenched certainties.
I don’t see a lot of Muslims questioning their faith and approaching it through reason: if they did, they wouldn’t be Muslims, so pernicious, odious, and oppressive are the doctrines of that faith. And it’s vile for Karen Armstrong to not only whitewash that faith, but distort the very things it says about other faiths.
Here’s a kind face of Islam: a British Muslim, Abuz Zabair, calling for the execution of Usama Hasan, an imam and British academic who committed the horrible crime of questioning the existence of Adam and Eve and of asserting that evolution and Islam were compatible. (Hasan, mindful of his neck, has since retracted those views.) It is chilling to see someone who looks like a moderate Muslim, and is so soft-spoken and dressed in modern style, calmly mouth such calls for execution.
And here are some statistics on British Muslims; I can’t vouch 100% for their reliability:
I don’t know about you, but 32% of British Muslims favoring execution in the name of Islam sounds like a lot to me, and perhaps something that Armstrong might worry about.
“Islamophobia” is becoming a pejorative word, smacking to many people of racism. But Muslims are not a race or an ethnic group: they’re adherents to a faith—an odious faith. Islamophobia—the fear and hatred of Islam—is the proper response to that faith.
h/t: Sigmund
I’m not really keen on music videos that portray science, for in general they’re pretty dire. But this one, from the Symphony of Science, is a little better than usual—if you can stand some of our favorite science popularizes autotuned—but it’s not very enlightening. Some of the images, however, are good.
However, you can refresh your knowledge by
h/t: Greg Mayer
Today is the 39th anniversary of the decision in Roe v. Wade, in which the United States Supreme Court, citing the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment about the right of privacy, handed down a ruling protecting a woman’s right to abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. The vote was 7-2 in favor. The Court later extended this right up to the time of fetal viability outside the womb. Here, courtesy of the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s, “Freethought of the Day,” is an excerpt from Harry Blackmun’s decision writing for the majority.
This decision is, of course, always endangered by the possibility of reversal, a possibility that has become more real with the present conservative-dominated Court. Mindful of that, let’s revisit the reasons why the decision was made.
“This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.”
h/t: Diane G.
If you’ve been following the secular websiteosphere at all, you’ll know about some of the free-speech intimidation that’s occurred this week, including the dissolution of a meeting of the Atheism, Secularism, and Humanism Society at Queen Mary College in London after a Muslim began filming the meeting (a talk by Anne Marie Waters critical of sharia law) and then threatened to kill those attending. I have found little about this incident in the press (try Googling it), and nobody but atheist bloggers calling attention to the religiously-based threat. And why hasn’t that guy who filmed and threatened the audience been arrested?
At any rate, there are two other incidents worthy of mention, including the unfortunate attack on a Jesus and Mo cartoon at University College London (and the resignation of the student—president of a secular society—responsible for its publication and Salman Rushdie’s decision to cancel his appearance the Jaipur literary festival because of death threats.
According to Joan Smith at the Independent, who summarizes these incidents, press coverage has not only been minimal, but there has been a fair amount of sympathy for those Muslims whose feelings were hurt.
Two of these incidents happened in Britain; the other in India. Both countries are secular democracies. Free speech is the backbone of those democracies, and, except for a few intimideated democracies like Canada and Ireland, free speech applies to all forms of criticism, political or religious.
Most religions are pernicious, but Islam, with its ridiculous displays of hurt feelings, its threats to kill not only apostates but critics, and its claim to be a “religion of peace,” is the most pernicious of all. Where are the “moderate” Muslims condemning this kind of bullying? I haven’t been able to find any, though I’m sure some dedicated reader can find an obscure criticism or two from the Islamic world.
As usual, Muslims who claim not to be extremists stand by silently while their coreligionists try to dismantle freedom of speech via threats of death. The silent ones are enablers. And until I hear a chorus of condemnation from Muslims throughout the world, I will claim that the concept of “moderate” Islam is a fiction. “Moderate” Islam is largely confined to those countries in which Muslims are a minority. When they predominate, the real face of that faith shows itself.
Here is the latest video compilation [25:40] by Dr Jonathan T. Pararajasingham, a British neurosurgeon. I’ve previously posted two of his compilations, “20 voices of belief” (academics and theologians) and “100 voices of unbelief” (academics). Here are 30 famous writers expressing their atheism. My favorite is Ian McEwan, who perfectly expresses the gulf between scientific and religious “ways of knowing.”
in order:
1. Sir Arthur C. Clarke, Science Fiction Writer
2. Nadine Gordimer, Nobel Laureate in Literature
3. Professor Isaac Asimov, Author and Biochemist
4. Arthur Miller, Pulitzer Prize-Winning Playwright
5. Wole Soyinka, Nobel Laureate in Literature
6. Gore Vidal, Award-Winning Novelist and Political Activist
7. Douglas Adams, Best-Selling Science Fiction Writer
8. Professor Germaine Greer, Writer and Feminist
9. Iain Banks, Best-Selling Fiction Writer
10. José Saramago, Nobel Laureate in Literature
11. Sir Terry Pratchett, NYT Best-Selling Novelist
12. Ken Follett, NYT Best-Selling Author
13. Ian McEwan, Man Booker Prize-Winning Novelist
14. Andrew Motion, Poet Laureate (1999-2009)
15. Professor Martin Amis, Award-Winning Novelist
16. Michel Houellebecq, Goncourt Prize-Winning French Novelist
17. Philip Roth, Man Booker Prize-Winning Novelist
18. Margaret Atwood, Booker Prize-Winning Author and Poet
19. Sir Salman Rushdie, Booker Prize-Winning Novelist
20. Norman MacCaig, Renowned Scottish Poet
21. Phillip Pullman, Best-Selling British Author
22. Dr Matt Ridley, Award-Winning Science Writer
23. Harold Pinter, Nobel Laureate in Literature
24. Howard Brenton, Award-Winning English Playwright
25. Tariq Ali, Award-Winning Writer and Filmmaker
26. Theodore Dalrymple, English Writer and Psychiatrist
27. Roddy Doyle, Booker Prize-Winning Novelist
28. Redmond O’Hanlon FRSL, British Writer and Scholar
29. Diana Athill, Award-Winning Author and Literary Editor
30. Christopher Hitchens, Best-Selling Author, Award-Winning Columnist
h/t: Michael
The recent kerfuffle about free will has had an unintended result: the whole concept of free agency in baseball is now in question. This piece details the the conundrum of player Prince Fielder:
“Free agency suggests I am able to make a choice void of any constraint, but right from the get-go, that premise is problematic,” said Fielder, adding that it isn’t as if he can just get a job as an acoustical engineer, or even as a professional athlete in another sport. “In the end, I am not an autonomous entity who can choose a path based on multiple options. Instead, I am one link in a causal chain, so my actions are merely the inevitable product of lawful causes stemming from prior events. What I’m saying is, I’m essentially limited to the 30 baseball organizations in North America; realistic, long-term socioeconomic factors have already decided which cities can support a team that pays the kind of salary I demand; and roster decisions dating all the way back to the invention of the game have determined which teams are in need of a first baseman today—so there are only a few clubs that could logically take me. And human nature will compel me to pick the one that offers the best, highest salary.”
h/t: Alric
In this TED talk, Alain de Botton (an author who specializes in popular philosophy) proposes “Atheism 2.0,” which rejects all deities and supernatural acts but caters to the “ritualistic side” of some atheists.
The highlights:
This is all a facile attempt to appropriate the trappings of religion as something essential to an atheist world. But do we need sermons and the endless repetition of “lessons”? Secular Europe does just fine without these things. What we need, as sociological studies indicate, is not stained glass, potted lilies, and a gasbag orator, but a society that cares about its citizens. For, as those studies show, societies that tend to be healthy are also the secular ones, and their citizens need not turn to sky-fathers for solace. Yes, we can have our rituals of marriage and funerals, but ritual baths? Calendars marking when we should observe what? I think not.