Some people actually believe this stuff

March 1, 2014 • 1:16 pm

by Matthew Cobb

All religions tell stories that seem somewhat bizarre to the more critically-minded unbelievers (talking snake, anyone?). But surely there is little out there to match the wackiness of what Scientologists truly believe, which is described in all its gory detail in this gif (pronounced…) An Illustrated History of Scientology, which was posted on Imgur. It lasts about 5 minutes and is highly recommended if you haven’t previously encountered this truly sophisticated theology. This is apparently called “Advanced Technology” by the Scientologists and is only revealed to believers when they have donated $$$$$$$$ to the Church. Why they hide this stuff from public gaze isn’t clear to me – could it be they think we will laugh?

An Illustrated History of Scientology – Imgur.

PS: I just noted on Wikipedia that “Scientologists warn that reading the Xenu story without proper authorization could cause pneumonia.” Just in case, here is a list of the symptoms.

Purdue University rejects “God” language on donor’s plaque

March 1, 2014 • 10:58 am

In a move reminiscent of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History’s removal of a donor’s plaque celebrating “God’s creatures”, Purdue University, in Lafayette, Indiana, is being sued because it refused to put up a donor’s plaque that referred to God.

As the Indianapolis Star reports:

When Michael McCracken and his wife made a $12,500 donation to Purdue’s School of Mechanical Engineering in 2012, Purdue asked the engineering graduate to provide an inscription for a conference room dedication plaque, which would be installed in the recently renovated Herrick Laboratories.

But the words McCracken chose, in honor of his parents, turned out to be controversial.

“To those who seek to better the world through the understanding of God’s physical laws and innovation of practical solutions. In honor of Dr. William ‘Ed’ and Glenda McCracken.”

Purdue rejected the dedication because of its use of the word “God,” which officials said would be a government endorsement of religion. Purdue is a public institution and receives money from state and federal entities.

McCracken, his lawyer and The Liberty Institute, a national group backing him, said the plaque is private speech and that Purdue’s ban violates his First Amendment rights under the establishment clause.

“The First Amendment protects Dr. McCracken’s right to refer to ‘God’s physical laws,’ ” said McCracken’s attorney, Robert K. Kelner of Covington & Burling LLP.

Well, not so fast. Purdue University, like the museum in Los Angeles, is a state university, i.e., an arm of the government of Indiana. The First Amendment prohibits the mixing of church and state (university in this case), so such signs are not only misleading (“God’s physical laws”—really??), presuming the existence of God, but unconstitutional. Purdue has every right to prohibit them, and I’m pleased that university took that stand. But I’m not proud of them, because of the way they phrased their objection (see below).

Now of course the donor has every right to take his money back unless there is a signed document saying that he’s donating the money without restrictions, but it appears that Purdue also seemed to approve a priori whatever the donor wanted to say. In that case Purdue made a mistake, but is under no legal obligation to provide a sign that violates the constitution. And in such a case it must return the money. But $12,500 is chicken feed to a school like Purdue.

Purdue’s legal counsel made the following statement:

“We have a great deal of understanding and sympathy for the disappointment of the McCracken family. If we had confidence that the courts would find this private speech as the donor’s counsel argues, then we would agree immediately — and strongly.

“But given the facts here, our status as a public institution, and the hopelessly muddled state of jurisprudence in this particular area, we could fully expect lengthy and expensive litigation that would wipe out the value of this donation many times over, and we just don’t think that’s advisable for either the donor or the university. Still, we remain open to continued discussions, as we’d much prefer to be in the mode of expressing gratitude, not disagreement, to our donors.”

As you see, the University is taking no position on the constitutionality of the wording, which I find a bit disappointing. They are simply saying that they can’t take the cost of a lawsuit. Well, that’s disingenuous because there’s no guarantee that anyone would sue (somebody with “standing” would have to complain). What they are doing is covering their own butts without offending the donor’s religious sentiments, and probably in light of the fact that they screwed up.  I think, though, that I know of one or two Purdue faculty that might have complained about such a plaque!

McCracken’s lawyer made the expected defense:

“The university is essentially giving voices that would ban even private references to ‘God’ a heckler’s veto here,” Kelner said. “In so many words, the statement suggests that Dr. McCracken’s pledge was not large enough to justify the hassle of defending his speech in court. But, of course, it is precisely the university’s decision to violate Dr. McCracken’s First Amendment rights that would lead to potentially lengthy and expensive litigation.”

It’s not a private reference if it’s on a state university campus in public view! But Kelner did hit a nerve by zeroing in on Purdue’s unwise implication that they would engage in litigation defending the plaque had McCracken’s donation been larger.

In the end, though, there’s no way this plaque will—or should—go up. It’s clearly a violation of the First Amendment, and I have a feeling that someone with standing would raise an objection. That would allow a first-amendment suit to go forward, probably with the help of the Freedom from Religion Foundation

The newspaper article ends with this ominous statement:

McCracken’s lawyer said his client has given him the go-ahead to enter into litigation should the situation not be cleared up through negotiation.

Such litigation would be a loser if Purdue gives the money back.  And someone who can afford a donation of only $12,500 is unlikely to be able to foot the costs of a free-speech lawsuit—unless the Liberty Institute will handle the case pro bono. 

If you want to see the profound misunderstanding that Americans have over their First Amendment, read some of the comments on the article (click on “comments” on the bottom). One reader even says that if you don’t like this kind of religious statement, just turn your head and don’t look at it. That, of course, could justify all kinds of religious incursions into government.  I don’t suppose that reader would make the same argument if there were an (equally illegal) plaque saying, “This building was donated in the name of humanity, for there is no God.”

h/t: Amy

Idaho set to allow guns on state campuses

March 1, 2014 • 8:49 am

There are three issues that are hot-button topics on this site: topics that, when I give my opinion, I know I’ll encounter a lot of push-back. They are, of course, Israel, free will, and gun control.  And on the last one I’m pretty sure my position will never budge, for I see the ready availability of guns as something we simply don’t need in our society, and a major cause of mayhem.

Yes, I know the Second Amendment is used to justify unlimited gun possession (often including semiautomatic or automatic weapons), but that second amendment reads as follows (this is the version ratified by the states):

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And I know the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted that as allowing private gun ownership, but why must I agree with everything they adjudicate? In this case, I agree with Garry Wills that the initial clause was meant to justify gun ownership for a militia, and not to allow everyone to own guns willy-nilly (see Wills’s cogent argument in his New York Review of Books piece, “To keep and bear arms“).

Today the Idaho state legislature is poised to receive a bill that will allow “concealed carry” (handguns or other weapons that are not visible) on state campuses. (The bill was passed by committee and sent to the House yesterday, which almost certainly means it will be approved by the entire legislature.)

ABC News reports on the bill:

Idaho lawmakers were expected to pass a bill Friday that would allow concealed carry permit holders to arm themselves on college and university grounds, despite opposition to the measure from multiple police chiefs and leaders of all eight of the state’s public colleges.

The legislation, which passed the Senate 25-10 earlier this month, allows retired law enforcement officers and those with Idaho’s new enhanced concealed carry permit to bring their firearms onto campus. Concealed weapons would still be barred from dormitories, stadiums and concert halls.

If it passes, Idaho would join six other states with provisions — either from lawmakers or dictated by court decisions — that allow concealed carry on campus: Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Utah is the only state with a specific law that forbids universities from banning concealed carry at any of its 10 public institutions.

I have to say that I see no justification for allowing guns on campus—or anywhere else in public in the hands of private citizens. The British model has always seemed optimal to me: some people can have guns, but that is subject to very strict licensing regulation.  And there is virtually no private possession of handguns.

In response to this ridiculous legislation, Idaho biology professor Greg Hampikian (who happens to also be the founder of the Idaho Innocence Project) wrote a sarcastic and biting editorial in the New York Times, “When may I shoot a student?“. A small excerpt:

Knee-jerk reactions from law enforcement officials and university presidents are best set aside. Ignore, for example, the lame argument that some drunken frat boys will fire their weapons in violation of best practices. This view is based on stereotypical depictions of drunken frat boys, a group whose dignity no one seems willing to defend.

The problem, of course, is not that drunken frat boys will be armed; it is that they are drunken frat boys. Arming them is clearly not the issue. They would cause damage with or without guns. I would point out that urinating against a building or firing a few rounds into a sorority house are both violations of the same honor code.

In terms of the campus murder rate — zero at present — I think that we can all agree that guns don’t kill people, people with guns do. Which is why encouraging guns on campus makes so much sense. Bad guys go where there are no guns, so by adding guns to campus more bad guys will spend their year abroad in London. Britain has incredibly restrictive laws — their cops don’t even have guns! — and gun deaths there are a tiny fraction of what they are in America. It’s a perfect place for bad guys.

Who’s behind this stupid law? Republicans, of course, and they’re legislating in the face of public sentiment. City Desk reports:

Following six hours of testimony from scores of Idaho citizens testifying nearly four-to-one in opposition, the Idaho House State Affairs Committee voted 11 to 3 in the late afternoon of Feb. 28 to approve the so-called “guns on campus” bill, sending it the full Idaho House—the final hurdle before the measure presumably heads to the governor’s office for his ultimate decision.

Friday’s committee vote was strictly along party lines, with the body’s 11 Republicans all voting in favor of Senate Bill 1254 and three Democrats voting no.

How much more evidence do we need to understand that Republicans are keeping this country dysfunctional?

h/t: Tom

Caturday felid trifecta: A $35,000 home improvement for kittehs, plus two gifs

March 1, 2014 • 5:32 am

According to Bored Panda, which must really be bored, an unidentified homeowner in California, who happens to own 18 moggies, has commissioned a $35,000 home-improvement project by the contracter Trillium Enterprises. The upgrade includes an elaborate system of ramps, walkways, and staircases so the cats can be anywhere they want.

The project is, of course, not for the owner’s delectation, but for his cats.  He also “installed a ventilation system, which will ensure that the home stays fresh and the cats stay healthy.”

Voilà—ailurophilia taken to the extreme:

Screen shot 2014-02-28 at 4.54.18 PM

Some misguided souls (I know at least one) are embarrassed to have their cats watch them while they bathe—or do other ablutions.

Screen shot 2014-02-28 at 4.53.56 PM

Screen shot 2014-02-28 at 4.53.00 PM

Screen shot 2014-02-28 at 4.53.33 PM

I guess the guy can afford it:

Screen shot 2014-02-28 at 4.54.34 PM

Now can’t you imagine Baihu, Butter, or Kink enjoying such a setup? Why don’t they have one?

Here’s a gif of a kitten who doesn’t know mirrors:

k1N13cY

Finally, here’s a gif (which I can’t embed) of an epic cat fail. 

h/t: Steve, Carol

Critical mail of the week

February 28, 2014 • 12:09 pm

These are just three emails I’ve gotten in the last week. Plantinga-lovers are especially incensed:

“Fr. Aidan Kimel” commented on “The bland leading the blind: A conversation between Gary Gutting and Alvin Plantinga“:

Tom, you are quite right. Plantinga is a sophisticated philosopher and cannot be judged on the basis of an interview in which he is attempting to communicate his arguments at a popular level. Before ridiculing the man, one should first read, and understand, his substantive writings.

His argument about atheism vs agnosticism is a minor point–more important to philosophers than anyone else. Yet folks here are jumping on Plantinga as if he is guilty of extreme stupidity. Before making such a judgment, go immerse yourself in analytic epistemology. Only then will you be qualified to have an opinion.

I am personally not sure what to make of Plantinga’s free-will defense of theism, but since few on this blog have actually read what he has written–and what he has written on this topic is philosophically IMPORTANT–it really doesn’t matter. The ignorance of science geeks is astounding.

Personally, I am uncomfortable with Plantinga’s constant phrasing of God as “a” being. I can use this language, of course, but I remain uncomfortable with it, for reasons I have cited over at my blog: http://goo.gl/L723sJ. David Hart has written eloquently on this question, but the omnipotent Coyne has already dismissed Hart without even having read him.

The Father is wrong that I didn’t dismiss Hart without having read him. I dismissed what I discerned of his views in a summary of his article by someone else, but emphasized that I hadn’t yet read his book. I have ordered his book and will read it.  But I have to say this—I don’t think, based on other things I’ve read, that Hart makes a slam-dunk case for God. Hart’s book is just the next in an endless line of references that theologians present you, sequentially, as “the best arguments for God.” When you find flaws in one, they simply proffer another. It’s like the mythical hydra: when you knock off one head, another crops up.

There must be a name for this kind of strategy, one that mirrors the “first cause” argument.

****

“mmanry,” who cited the website Life Bible Kids, also commented on “The bland leading the blind: A conversation between Gary Gutting and Alvin Plantinga“:

“Second, why is Alvin Plantinga famous, or even have a job? The arguments he makes are so palpably foolish that any freshman philosopher can see through them. Yet thousands of Christians regard him as a guru.”

Jerry, you prove over and over again that you really don’t have any understanding of Plantinga and philosophy at all. Why is it that you believe that you are the “enlightened one” and Plantinga is not? Even Thomas Nagel agrees with Plantinga on certain points. Let’s be honest, I think most people would trust Nagel over you in a philosophical debate any day. Stick to biology.

______________

In response, let me just list a selection of things I’ve read by Plantinga:

Dennett, D. C., and A. Plantinga. 2010. Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? Oxford University Press, New York.
Plantinga, A. 2000. Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford University Press, New York.
Plantinga, A. 2001. When faith and reason clash: Evolution and the Bible. Pp. 113-145 in R. T. Pennock, ed. Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Plantinga, A. 2011. Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Plantinga, A., and J. F. S. (ed.). 1988. The Analytic Theist: An Alvin Plantinga Reader. William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Plantinga, A., and N. Wolterstoff. 1991. Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN.

I think that qualifies as a decent background in Plantinga. And really, he’s not hard to understand. He’s just hard to swallow.

I might add that real, card-carrying philosophers violently disagree with Plantinga, and in fact Nagel is an outlier. See, for instance, Dan Dennett’s evisceration of Plantinga in their jointly-published book cited above.

***

Finally, “George”, who cited an Anti-ageing website, commented on “A new year of creationist nonsense“:

“Did the Civil War happen? You obviously weren’t there to see that…”

No, BUT we have written accounts of the event from people who WERE there! This then is a weak argument.

There are no written records from millions of years ago, and the fossil record can and will be interpreted in a way that will protect the evolutionists theories.

Evolutionists always invoke “creationism” and religion, when making their arguments, as if the only reason ANYONE would challenge macro-evolution is a on a RELIGIOUS basis.

That assertion is totally false! Evolution (macro-evolution) can and should be challenged purely on a scientific basis. How else COULD it be challenged?

We need to get beyond the nonsense that all sorts of dire things will happen if people do not believe in macro-evolution.

Medicines would not suddenly cease to work, genetics and biology would no more be threatened by a valid refutation of macro-evolution, than physics was destroyed because quantum physics supplanted Newtonian physics.

Macro-evolution is scientific dogma, and is defended by the scientific establishment, just as religion defended their concept of the Earth as the center of the solar system before Galileo proved it incorrect.

The difference is that science doesn’t burn you at the stake if you disagree, and I concede that for the evolution heretics, that is of course a very big difference.

________________

There’s not much to say about this except to show once more the obdurate and willful ignorance of creationists.  We have tons of fossil “transitional forms” that testify to “macroevolution,” which is a nebulous term roughly meaning the evolution of one “kind” of plant or animal into a different “kind”. But under anyone’s definition birds and reptiles are different kinds, and we have the transitions from the latter to the former. Ditto for reptiles and mammals, fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, and terrestrial artiodactyls (even-toed mammals) into whales. To argue that we interpret the fossil record “in a way that will protect the evolutionsts [sic] theories is to argue that evolutionists (including the religious ones!) are in some kind of conspiracy to protect a flawed theory. But why would religious scientists like Ken Miller, Francis Collins, and all the folks at BioLogos do that?

The “we weren’t there to see it, so it didn’t happen” argument against evolution is becoming more and more popular. It behooves all of us to understand how it’s refuted by the data.

~