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.
I have no idea why P.Z. keeps doing his anti-Caturday posts. It can’t be because he doesn’t like cats, for, as we know, only a churlish misanfeline could disdain the awesome kitteh. Nevertheless, I’ll keep giving him fodder by catsplaining.
Today we have two items. The first is a site giving 35 pictures of cats with mustaches. Here are a few good ones, and there are many more:
(some waxing going on here)
And here’s a slightly sappy but funny video called “The Ballad of Pork Chop,” written by a man who’s trying to slim down his 20-pound behemoth. It turns out that ambulatory osculation is the only form of exercise that seems to work:
I’ll say it once more: theology is the art of transforming scientific necessities into religious virtues. No one is more adept at this than John Haught, Roman Catholic theologian at Georgetown University. Haught has devoted much of his career to reconciling Catholicism (and the concept of a beneficent God) with the idea of evolution: he’s written at least five books on the topic, and several more on reconciling science in general with religion.
Haught’s schtick is to show that religious people should not be dismayed at the findings of science—especially the Big Bang and evolution—because in reality they are exactly what one would expect from God. Clearly, the Biblical literalists, or even anti-evolution evangelicals, got it wrong from the get-go. The God of Haught (about whose nature he has, of course, no doubt) wouldn’t have just created everything ex nihilo, or made the universe expand from a point without knowing that the critical species would evolve on one planet 14 billion years later. No, the real God is generous, creative, and loves the drama of watching his evolutionary scheme unfold. In other words, God loves a good show. Haught is always banging on about the “drama” and “surprise” of God’s evolutionary scheme, as if the deity were some voracious denizen of Broadway using his status to get a ticket to Tony Kushner’s new play.
Here are a few quotes from Haught’s latest book, Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin, God, and the Drama of Life (2010), which goes after Dennett, Dawkins and me for being bad theologians who dismiss God’s role because we don’t really understand how He created through the evolutionary process, and that God’s really behind it all:
. . . since Darwin’s own time, many theologians have not considered it at all inconceivable that divine creativity, intentionality, and beneficence would be factors in bringing about the enabling cosmic conditions essential for natural selection to be effective in the transformation of life over an immense period of time. Actually, as I have argued in God after Darwin and elsewhere, and as I shall propose in this book once again, a properly Christian understanding of God even predicts the kind of life-world that evolutionary biology has discovered and described.
and
Without in any way rejecting evolutionary theory, theology may plausibly claim that biodiversity exists ultimately because of an extravagant divine generosity that provides the enabling conditions that invite the universe to become as interesting, various, and hence beautiful as possible.
and
Think of the Creator as bringing into being a world that can in turn give rise spontaneously to new life and lush diversity, and eventually to human beings. In that case, evolution is the unfolding of the world’s God-endowed resourcefulness. The divine maker of such a self-creative world is arguably much more impressive—hence worthier of human reverence and gratitude—than is a ‘designer”’ who molds and micromanages everything directly.
This is the best one:
However, Tillich states, “there is no creativity, divine or human, without the holy waste which comes out of the creative abundance of the heart and does not ask ‘What use is this?'” Our indictment of nature’s excess in evolution [JAC: he’s referring here to all those millions of seemingly unnecessary species], therefore, may stem as much from our lovelessness and rationalistic narrowness as from the allegedly lofty ethical heights we think we have reached. In the cross, however, Christian discover the image of a self-wasting God, and so we must not suppress in ourselves “the waste of self-surrender, the spirit who trespasses all reason.”
Perhaps it is with the same spiritual expectation of holy waste that Christians should look at the wildness of variation and diversity in Darwin’s disturbing picture of life.
Holy waste? Self-wasting God? The equating of Jesus with a flea or a tapeworm? How can anyone buy this except those whose need to accept both evolution and Jesus is so compelling that they can swallow such words without a trace of shame? Yes, yes, this is “sophisticated” theology. And it’s laughable.
What is clear from reading this man is that there is no conceivable discovery about nature that could ever contravene his idea of God. Whatever science finds, no matter how contradictory to religious scripture it might appear, can ultimately be forced into Haught’s procrustean bed of a loving, beneficent, and generous God. What a waste of a good brain, to spend one’s life grinding out this kind of theological sausagery.
And isn’t it curious that theologians didn’t come to the “properly Christian understanding of God” until after Darwin proposed evolution and natural selection in 1859?
All this shows that the so-called “dialogue” between science and faith is really a monologue in which science tells theology how to clean up its act. Theology contributes nothing to science, though Haught thinks otherwise (more on that another time).
Haught’s God, who loves the drama of evolution and natural selection
How can I possibly ignore an animation that combines two of my favorite subjects: cats and boots? Here’s the official trailer for DreamWorks’ Puss in Boots, coming in November. This actually looks pretty funny: there are two eminently catlike behaviors in just this trailer:
And, just to show that DreamWorks has a sense of humor, here’s a video explaining why Puss doesn’t wear pants, joining the ranks of characters like Donald Duck, Winnie the Pooh, and Porky Pig, all of whom went commando in their films.
Sam Harris has put up a second video, this one an hour long, answering the questions of readers. I think it’s much better than the first edition of “Ask Sam”; he’s quite articulate, and this is definitely worth watching. (Plus he’s not dressed in black!). I’m always impressed by his ability to speak extemporaneously, even if he did think out the answers before the video.
And please, can we stay off the topic of torture and just stick to the topics that Sam discusses?
Here are the topics, which I’ve taken directly from the post own Sam’s own website. My take on the questions comes after the given time. (The time links are accurate for going manually to that point in the discussion, but you shouldn’t click on them. Best listen to the whole thing).
1. Eternity and the meaning of life0:42. Doesn’t atheism rob life of its meaning? Harris thinks that the religious idea of an afterlife “robs life of its meaning,” for it devalues the very precious moments of our life and makes us ignore the finality of death. I agree completely.
2. Do we have free will? 4:43. Answer: no. “The problem is free will is just a non-starter, philosophically and scientifically. Unlike many other illusions, there is no way you can describe the universe so as to make sense of this notion of free will. Now there are many people who have artfully changed the subject and tried to get a version of free will that makes some scientific sense. [JAC: so true!] But this is not what people actually mean by free will. What people mean is that they—their conscious selves—are free to chose their actions You choose what you want; you choose what you will to do. . . they still feel that at every moment, there is freedom to choose. Now what can this mean? From the position of conscious awareness of your inner life, this can’t be true. Everything you’re consciously aware of, at every moment, is the result of causes of which you’re not aware, over which you exert no conscious control.”
Sam goes on to explain, in light of this notion, why we should not be nihilists; why we need to do something instead of existing passively. I am 100% on board with his answer, and am glad that he sees through those philosophers who, through redefinition, try to save “free will” by simply ignoring what nearly everybody thinks is free will. It’s time to admit—and that means telling the public—that contracausal free will doesn’t exist, and to coin a new term for those philosophical forms of “free will” that aren’t contracausal.
3. How can we convince religious people to abandon their beliefs? 14:52. His idea is that religion drains away from efforts that can really improve our world. His solution is to undermine the truth claims of religions that undermine the actions of their adherents.
4. How can atheists live among the faithful? 19:09. Don’t marry someone who will abuse your children by teaching them about hell and other injurious doctrines, and speak openly, when you can, about what we know about the universe.
5. How should we talk to children about death? 21:52. His take on the “humility” of science, which precedes his answer, is quite good. He admits that he doesn’t know what happens after death, although he thinks that we’re “zeroed out” after death just as we were before birth. However, he asserts that we should not given children false promises that they will “hang out for eternity” after death, for this denies them both the ability to grieve, and also to admit uncertainty before mystery. He argues that to be afraid of nonexistence after death is as foolish as to be afraid of nonexistence before birth, but I don’t agree with him. To use Hitchen’s simile, before birth we weren’t at the party, but during life we are, and who wants to leave the party?
6. Does human life have intrinsic value? 26:01. We have more “value” (in terms of the disutility of harming creatures) than, say, insects, because of the greater range of our experiences. That, of course, leads into the question of whether, then, the lives of some humans have more value than the lives of others. His answer is no, because equal treatment of all leads to the greatest benefits for our society. He does admit, though, that some people are more “important” than others; but the virtues of fairness and justice demand that we ignore this inequality.
7. Why should we be confident in the authority of science? 30:36. This, of course, is a question that “sophisticated” theologians say is answered by the words “God made the universe scientifically intelligible.” He notes that “there are huge areas of the scientific world that are not up for grabs,” i.e. there are some things we know (i.e., the role of DNA in inheritance) that are not going to be changed. We have thus made progress in science—and in ways that aren’t the same as “progress” in religion, art, and literature. I suspect this last statement, particularly with respect to art and literature, will be controversial, spawning accusations of “scientism”, though by and large I agree with Sam. In what sense are Picasso’s paintings “better” than those of Rembrandt?
8. How can one criticize Islam after the terrorism in Norway? 35:43. The Norway massacre has made it more difficult to criticize Islam, but we have to “blow past that.” We can’t talk about religion as a monolith, and must still fight against the uniquely bad tenets embodied in the Islamic notions of martyrdom and jihad—tenets that he sees as part of mainstream Islam. Yes, right-wing racists also concentrate on these issues, but the potential harm they could cause is still a concern. The Muslim world must find a way to marginalize those who call for jihad and martyrdom, but it will be hard, like trying to get Christians to stop thinking of Jesus as the son of God.
9. Should atheists join with Christians against Islam? 41:50. The problem is that much Christian opposition to Islam is self-serving, based on the desire to promulgate Christianity. Sam sees no particular reason to link up with such folks, but nor should we pretend that every religion poses the same threat as Islam. Opposing Islam need not be based on xenophobia or racism, even though that’s the motivation for some opponents of Islam.
10. What does it mean to speak about the human mind objectively? 45:17. Although we must rely on self report as a starting point for such studies (Sam talks about his tintinnitus), but that doesn’t prevent us from studying such subjective phenomena using the tools of neuroscience.
11. How can spiritual claims be scientifically justified 50:14. If Sam claims, as he has, that meditation is transformative, why can’t we agree that Christian experience is transformative? The response is obvious: only one of these experiences leads to claims about the existence of “invisible others” and the attention those others pay to the world. An experience is valid; its implications for the universe may not be.
12. Why can’t religion remain a private matter? 54:52. Why do we worry about the privacy of faith in people’s minds, especially when such faith gives them comfort? The reason is that it’s hard for those beliefs to remain private: they are foisted on children and acted out in the life of the believer in ways that can harm or mislead others. He uses the example of a bus driver who is too exhausted to drive, but deals with it by saying a prayer that nothing bad will happen.
13. What do you like to speak about at public events?58:09. See for yourself!
Like many, I can’t abide the solipsistic Gwyneth Paltrow, but I’m not here (well, not completely) to criticize her. I simply want to show one of the eight “shortlisted” items that Gwynnie “can’t live without,” as detailed in the September Issue of Elle Decor. The slideshow list, which begins here, includes hand-painted wallpaper, star shaped lanterns, a designer bathtub in her bedroom, and this item (Photo credit: Mike and Maaike Inc.):
What is it? Gwynnie describes it:
6. Juxtaposed: Religion Shelf. Built-in slots hold holy books—including the Qur’an, Bible, and Tao Te Ching—all at the same level (which is how I like to think about religion).
Oy, I need a Master Cleanse! Some poor carpenter had to make this to ensure that no faith was higher than any other. Somehow I’m thinking that this isn’t supposed to show that all religions are equally bad.
If you have a scanner and a cat, you may be in luck. An alert reader sent me a site full of “cat scans,” in which readers simply put their cat on a computer scanner and post the results. Some of the shots (a few are shown below) are great.
I’ll award an autographed HARDBACK edition of WEIT to the reader who sends me the best scan of his/her cat. My collection of hardbacks is very small now, so this will be the last one I offer in a contest. The autograph will include my drawing of the winning cat.
Rules: Contest closes on the last day of August. Send only one scan per cat, please. If there are fewer than ten entries, only a paperback will be awarded. Send scans to my email address, easily obtained by Googling my name and my university.
Flatbed scanners do not, I believe, use lasers, so I doubt that scanning can cause harm. If anybody knows otherwise, please let us know.
What to shoot for (click to enlarge). The first one is definitely a winner!
I’ve subscribed to The New Yorker for many years, and devour each issue within a few days after it arrives, often reading every article. And yet the magazine has two features that irritate me. The most important is that there are far too many pieces that don’t say very much, but say it in very good English. The meaty articles of yore have largely disappeared, replaced with pop-culture stuff or simply pieces that read well but leave one unsatisifed. Less important, but still annoying, is the magazine’s occasional critiques of atheism and its soft-pedaling of religion. The editors know very well that any hard-core questioning of faith won’t go down well with its readers.
Both of these annoyances are in view in James Wood’s critique of atheism in the latest issue, “Is that all there is? Secularism and its discontents.” (Wood, an English professor at Harvard, is a superb literary critic but, as we’ve seen on this site, likes to take an occasional swipe at atheism [see also here].) Wood, apparently a nonbeliever, is undergoing a mid-life crisis: he’s reading the obituaries of his contemporaries and is beset day and night with the Big Questions of cosmic purpose and meaning. (Wood includes among these, “How could there be no design, no metaphysical purpose?” and ” Can it be that every life—beginning with my own, my husband’s, my child’s, and spreading outward—is cosmically irrelevant?”).
Wood doesn’t fathom that for many of us those questions don’t matter, because we know that there is no cosmic purpose and meaning to our life, only the meaning we impute to it ourself.
These are theological questions without theological answers, and, if the atheist is not supposed to entertain them, then, for slightly different reasons, neither is the religious believer. Religion assumes that they are not valid questions because it has already answered them; atheism assumes that they are not valid questions because it cannot answer them. But as one gets older, and parents and peers begin to die, and the obituaries in the newspaper are no longer missives from a faraway place but local letters, and one’s own projects seem ever more pointless and ephemeral. . .
Note that this paragraph sounds good, in typical New Yorker style, but says very little except that Wood is having an existential crisis. Religion does not assume that the Big Questions are invalid: many religious people consider that those questions are unanswered, and their faith is a constant quest for answers. And even if the faithful considered them answered, why does that make them invalid?
As for atheists, we consider the questions invalid because we have answered them: they are meaningless things to ask, akin to asking “what is the purpose of a pebble”? The universe is a physical system without teleological purpose or god-imputed meaning.
Wood then tarts up his short essay with erudite references to Virginia Woolf, Max Weber, and Charles Taylor before he gets to the ostensible subject of the piece, a review of the book The Joy of Secularism: 11 Essays for How We Live Now, edited by George Levine. He doesn’t much like the book, apparently because it uses the word “secular” in two ways:
One problem is that it’s not always clear what Levine and his contributors mean by secularism. Some of the time, I think they mean just atheism or practical agnosticism (i.e., living without appeal to, or belief in, supernatural agency). Such a life is, of course, civically compatible with the continued existence of organized religion. More often, the working definition here is of secularism as a historical force ultimately triumphant and victorious: a vision of the future as an overcoming of religion.
What, exactly, is the point of saying that atheism is “civically compatible” with organized religion? That’s just plain dumb. Yes, atheists live in a society full of religious people. That statement is nothing other than a fatuous attempt to say that atheism and religion are compatible. And do the notions of secularism as non-religion or as a social movement bent on overcoming religion differ in any important way?
And then there’s this, which is the last paragraph of his piece:
Another difficulty is that, whether or not people did feel full or enchanted in centuries past, religion cannot be identified with the promise of fullness or enchantment. Both Christianity and Islam harshly challenge the self with an insistence on submission, sacrifice, and kenosis—an emptying out of the self, an exchange of the wrong kind of fullness for the right kind of humility—and Buddhism seeks to undermine the very idea of the sovereign, unified self. Revolutionary asceticism, which is what these religions in different ways embody, could be said to be hellbent on disenchantment.
Classic New Yorker style: saying something in nice words that is either meaningless or wrong. Does Wood not see that both Christianity and Islam reward submission with promises of paradise? If so, why does he say that “religion cannot be identified with the promise of fullness or enchantment”? And Buddhism, while emphasizing one’s liberation from the shackles of ego, can hardly be said to be disenchanting. Rather, it’s fulfilling, a way to find peace in in this world. As for kenosis: well, that’s just a big word that doesn’t belong here.
As far as I can see, this paragraph either says nothing or is wrong. It’s hard to tell. But that’s what happens when the New Yorker confuses florid writing with good thinking.
I sometimes post the nasty emails I get from Christians, and I’ve gotten a fair few in the last two weeks (saying that morality doesn’t come from God drove many Christers wild), but an email like the following makes up for everything. Forgive me for putting this up, but who doesn’t like to feel that their efforts have paid off? I did not, of course, write my book to turn people into atheists, but if it has that effect—and rational discussion of evidence often does—then that’s all well and good.
This is posted with permission.
Dear Jerry,
Ever since I read your book (WEIT) I have been lurking about on your website and don’t really tend to comment on any posts. I thought it would be appropriate however to send you an email to say thanks – I’ll clarify why in a moment.
I am a thirty-two-year-old male from [a country in northern Europe]. I work as a software engineer and during coffee breaks I read your website. I also have a cat named [name redacted] – I might send in some more about him later 🙂
I was raised a Christian by my parents. Both of them are scientists, however both of them are also religious (my mother much more so than my father). As a young boy I accepted everything for granted and had no doubt in my mind that everything I heard at Sunday School was plain and simply true. As I grew up however, doubts formed in my mind.
From about fifteen I started thinking about the subject more rationally and started asking myself questions. I found out that I could not combine my (otherwise rational and secular) worldview with my Christian upbringing. For a long time however, I sat on the fence and did not worry about it too much.
By the time I was thirty I think I was a de facto atheist although I might not have had the courage to own up to it if I had been put on the spot. Somehow I was basically too scared to admit it, even to myself. For a long time I had struggled with my own mortality. After reading your book and making up my mind about the subject, I suddenly felt liberated and free. I went on to read more material and more rationalist sources. And the further I went, the more free, liberated and happy I felt! The uncertainty was slowly wearing off to be replaced by rationality and clarity.
I’d like to say thanks for writing your book. For me it formed a turning point, the figurative straw that broke religion’s back in my mind. Being from a European country I never had any doubts about evolution as it was taught in schools and formed a solid basis for my understanding of nature. However, it took me a long time to be able to throw off the fetters of religion and your book formed a turning point for me in that regard.
Feel free to publish this email if you like, I would however appreciate you not publishing my name or email.
Thanks,
[name redacted]
Feel free to say a few words to this brave soul. By the way, I have never gotten a single email telling me that my atheist writings have turned someone away from evolution who had initially accepted it or was interested in it. And, given the emails I’ve gotten lately, don’t think those people would be hesitant to write!
(some waxing going on here)
