How Syria Divided The World by Michael Ignatieff, The New York Review of Books, July 11, 2012
This NYRB essay highlights the points made in my previous post - "Nationalism: One Of Two Major Threats To The Survival Of Humankind And Earth" - regarding the dangers of strategic nationalism as currently practiced by the most powerful nations on Earth. The actions of the respective leaderships of the U.S., Russia, and China regarding Syria starkly exemplify how these leading nations willfully choose to ignore the broader dangers posed by their robust nation-state competitive gamesmanship to Humankind and the planet. The machinations of all three are impeding efforts to establish a binding global ethic and pluralistic world governing body that put the well-being of Humankind and the health and sustainability of the planet above the interests of nation-states.
While U.S. leadership sometimes supports a global morality and governing body, too often when push comes to shove it too will do, sometimes very forcibly, all that is necessary to serve its national interests first and foremost. As for Russian and Chinese leadership, they are never ambivalent about their respective positions regarding nationalism versus globalism. Both consistently opt for a winner take all strategy among competing nation-states in their pursuit of resources, markets, and global influence - political, historical, ideological. The needs of Humankind and the planet - much less that of the Middle East, the most volatile place on earth - are seldom, if at all, the concern of Russian and Chinese leadership.
I'm reminded of the Parker Brothers-Hasbro board game "Risk" of the late 1950s, early 1960s where each player's goal is world domination. Fun for the parlor or family room but a heinous strategy when exercised throughout the increasingly fragile biosphere and accompanied by an inconsistent, negligible, or non-existent regard for human suffering.
If the Occupy Movement is looking to firm up its cause and message I recommend condemning the demotion of the needs of Humankind and Earth to the selfish, destructive desires of the most powerful nation-states. Put Russia and China at the top of the target list, followed closely by the U.S.
July 11, 2012
Nationalism - One Of Two Major Threats To The Survival Of Humankind And Earth
How Syria Divided The World by Rober Ignatieff, The New York Review of Books, July 11, 2012
This NYRB essay highlights the points made below regarding the dangers of strategic nationalism, as currently practiced by the most powerful nations on Earth. The actions of the U.S., Russia, and China regarding Syria starkly exemplify nation-state competitive gamesmanship. The machinations of all three are impeding efforts to establish a global ethic and a pluralistic world governing body that puts the well-being of Humankind and the sustainability of the planet above the interests of nation-states.
While U.S. leadership sometimes behaves as if it supports a global morality and governing body, too often when push comes to shove it will do, sometimes quite forcibly, all that is necessary to serve its national interests first and foremost. As for Russian and Chinese leadership, they are never ambivalent about their respective positions. Both consistently opt for a winner take all strategy among competing nation-states in their pursuit of resources, markets, and global influence (political, historical, ideological). The needs of Humankind and the planet much less that of the Middle East the most volatile regions on earth, are seldom, if at all, the concern of Russian and Chinese leadership.
I'm reminded of the Parker Brothers-Hasbro "Risk" board game of the late 1950s, early 1960s. Fun for the parlor or family room but a heinous strategy when exercised throughout the increasingly fragile biosphere and accompanied by an inconsistent, neglible, or non-existent regard for human suffering.
If the Occupy Movement is looking to firm up its cause and message I recommend condemning the demotion of Humankind's and Earth's needs to the selfish, destruction desires of the powerful nation-states. Put Russia and China at the top of the target list followed by the U.S.
July 8, 2012
"God Particle" - A Metaphor Causing Increased Science And Religion Collisions
A graphic showing traces of collision of particles at CERN in Geneva,
where scientists believe they have found the Higgs boson.
My previous post, “'God Particle' Discovered – Really?,” cautioned that the journalistic over-use of the term “God particle” could be problematic for science, religious believers, and the global public at large. It is already proving to be so. The following is a small sample of articles about believers’ reactions to news of the possible discovery of the “Higgs boson.” The responses range from a reaffirmation that the particle is the creation of the Abrahamic deity as described in the Bible, to indifference, to a condemnation of godless scientists for not possessing a reason for awe, wonder and worship:
“God and the God Particle”
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/07/06/faqs-god-and-the-god-particle/ "The Higgs boson may be responsible for holding the universe together, but Jesus holds the "God particle" in its place."
"Pakistan Shuns Physicist Linked to 'God Particle'"
http://www.omaha.com/article/20120708/AP15/307089958 "Despite his achievements (researching the Higgs boson), Abdus Salam's (Pakistan's first Nobel laureate) name appears in few textbooks and is rarely mentioned by Pakistani leaders or the media. (Salam belonged to the Ahmadi sect, considered to be heretical by Pakistan's Muslims.) By contrast, fellow Pakistani physicist A.Q. Khan, who played a key role in developing the country's nuclear bomb and later confessed to spreading nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya, is considered a national hero. Khan is a Muslim."
“Scientists Discover ‘The God Particle’, As Clerics Insist It Represents God”
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/07/06/faqs-god-and-the-god-particle/ "The Higgs boson may be responsible for holding the universe together, but Jesus holds the "God particle" in its place."
"All Things Visible and Invisible - Celebrating the 'God Particle'"
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/all-things-visible-and-invisible-celerating-the-god-particle.html "God is not a particle, of course. God is absolute being, which is something else entirely. We now have more insight into the physical reality of God’s creation. “Basic scientific research, as well as applied research, is a significant expression of man’s dominion over creation,” the Catechism tells us. This week’s result is as basic as research can get. … The Church – and belief in the supernatural in general – are often said to be in conflict with science. Not true. But the Church is in conflict with a materialist scientism that believes all reality is empirically observable and testable, and that no other questions are worth asking. This scientism is deadly. Walker Percy writes:
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/all-things-visible-and-invisible-celerating-the-god-particle.html "God is not a particle, of course. God is absolute being, which is something else entirely. We now have more insight into the physical reality of God’s creation. “Basic scientific research, as well as applied research, is a significant expression of man’s dominion over creation,” the Catechism tells us. This week’s result is as basic as research can get. … The Church – and belief in the supernatural in general – are often said to be in conflict with science. Not true. But the Church is in conflict with a materialist scientism that believes all reality is empirically observable and testable, and that no other questions are worth asking. This scientism is deadly. Walker Percy writes:
[T]he consciousness of Western man, the layman in particular, has been transformed by a curious misapprehension of the scientific method. One is tempted to use the theological term “idolatry.” This misapprehension, which is not the fault of science, but rather the inevitable consequence of the victory of the scientific worldview. . .takes the form of a radical and paradoxical loss of sovereignty by the layman and of a radical impoverishment of human relations.
"So it was wonderful to hear the excitement of the scientists, to see them celebrate with the ordinary ritual of champagne, to hear of Higgs’ own amazement at the discovery within his lifetime. They were marking a success in where wonder can take us using our reason to seek truth."
http://www.omaha.com/article/20120708/AP15/307089958 "Despite his achievements (researching the Higgs boson), Abdus Salam's (Pakistan's first Nobel laureate) name appears in few textbooks and is rarely mentioned by Pakistani leaders or the media. (Salam belonged to the Ahmadi sect, considered to be heretical by Pakistan's Muslims.) By contrast, fellow Pakistani physicist A.Q. Khan, who played a key role in developing the country's nuclear bomb and later confessed to spreading nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya, is considered a national hero. Khan is a Muslim."
“Scientists Discover ‘The God Particle’, As Clerics Insist It Represents God”
http://www.tribune.com.ng/sun/church-features/7805-scientists-discover-the-god-particle-as-clerics-insist-it-represents-god "It (the discovery) shows that it is establishing the fact that there was a force behind creation in such a way that God was behind it. Those particles did not just happen. It was the spoken word of God that caused the collision that resulted in creation."
“Vatican Astronomer Says 'God Particle' Misnamed, But Exciting” http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-astronomer-says-god-particle-is-misnamed-but-exciting/ "...if there was a particle that could exist that could explain all the little things we wanted to explain, it would be a gift from God."
"Evidence of the God Particle Found"
http://www.speakingtree.in/spiritual-blogs/seekers/science-of-spirituality/evidence-of-god-particle-found
"The discovery of The God Particle represents a step forward in appreciation of God’s awe-inspiring universe however claiming to find the elusive piece of the cosmic puzzle is too naïve an attempt. Having said that, scientists may discover it, but we can’t deny HE (the eternal force God) invented it! To deny is to accept it too. ... Faith is the opposite of proof. I have faith in HIM and need no proof. God exists outside and inside of it all. He's not something which can be explained away by science, nor proven by religious fervor or argument. The God Particle is, in you and in me and in every particle around us. We only need to seek earnestly."
“‘God particle’ Discovered by Scientists - What It Means For Your Faith”
http://odysseynetworks.org/news/2012/07/03/scientist-christian-theologian-and-the-god-particle “People of faith have nothing to fear by these new scientific discoveries. The God of Christian theology is not a god of the gaps, an intelligent designer who can be proved in the places of our scientific ignorance. God is the One who holds the whole scientific story in existence by maintaining the laws of physics. … Behind the myriad of particles and the laws, the universe has a coherent story because it is creation.”
“The God Particle: What Does It Mean From a Spiritual and Metaphysical Perspective?”
http://metaphysicalbible.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/the-god-particle-what-does-it-mean-from-a-spiritual-and-metaphysical-perspective/ “I’m putting my quantum spirituality and metaphysician hats on when I say I believe the ‘God particle’ quantum physicists believe they’ve found is really the ‘Christ Particle.’ Why? I believe it is most appropriately called the ‘Christ Particle’ because the Christ is God in physicality. And that’s the most famous duet of all: God expressing as the Christ. It is the ‘Christ Particle that gives “all matter in the universe size and shape.”
“Hunt For ‘God Particle’ Will Collide With Faith”
http://blog.crown.org/2011/12/16/hunt-for-god-particle-will-collide-with-faith/ “This infinitesimally small piece of physical matter will likely become a big matter indeed and could impact the lives of Christians globally. For many in the scientific community, the Higgs boson particle is the Holy Grail that will allow modern science to finally and forever trump ancient religious beliefs.” … “The paradox of it all is that the “God particle” will likely be used in an attempt to undermine the very existence of God—even though any discovery will fail to explain how the Higgs boson particle originated in the first place. … But we have nothing to fear. Our God created every particle in the universe, and I am confident His fingerprints will ultimately be found on each and every one. … The invisible God not only made the Higgs boson particle, He made all other matter!”
July 5, 2012
"God Particle" Discovered - Really?
Higgs event. Photo from Wikimedia Commons
Much has been reported in the news the past few days about the discovery at the Large Hadron Collider in Europe of a new sub-atomic particle. The media is often referring to this yet to be definitively identified particle as the "God particle," with some writers using the qualifier that it is not a description liked by most scientists.
Such media usage of the term "the God particle" might persuade you think/believe that this discovery has something to do with the Christian biblical claim that a deity created all the mass we observe in the universe. The rationale for such a view is something like the following: These subatomic particles spontaneously come together in space to form clumps of matter that have mass, that this process led to the formation of atoms, and that gravity gave rise to all the more complex matter that followed. So far, so good. This is what leading theoretical physicists believe happened in the formation of our universe and all that is in it, including us. Here is where the science stops and journalist conjecture and license, much to the delight of many believers, begins - that such a process of matter formation as described by scientists can only be explained as a creation act of God.
I am reminded of the hoopla that arose a few years back over the so-called discovery of the "God gene." See my post The God Gene? on what became of that hyperbolic claim.
Why is the purported Higgs boson or particle being called the "God particle?" Here is what Wikipedia has to say:
From the Wikipedia article, "Higgs boson"
The Higgs boson is often referred to as the "God particle" by individuals outside the scientific community, after the title of Leon Lederman's popular science book on particle physics, The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?. While use of this term may have contributed to increased media interest, many scientists dislike it, since it overstates the particle's importance, not least since its discovery would still leave unanswered questions about the unification of quantum chromodynamics, the electroweak interaction, and gravity, as well as the ultimate origin of the universe. Higgs, an atheist himself, is displeased that the Higgs particle is nicknamed the "God particle", because the term "might offend people who are religious".
Lederman said he gave it the nickname "the God particle" because the particle is "so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive," but jokingly added that a second reason was because "the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing."
A renaming competition conducted by the science correspondent for the British Guardian newspaper chose the name "the champagne bottle boson" as the best from among their submissions: "The bottom of a champagne bottle is in the shape of the Higgs potential and is often used as an illustration in physics lectures. So it's not an embarrassingly grandiose name, it is memorable, and [it] has some physics connection too."
Don't be lulled by this widespread usage of the term "God particle" into thinking that this important discovery of what psysicists believe may be the "Higgs boson" or "Higgs particle" pertains to science having finally proven that God exists. It doesn't. Here are two excellent references that explain what physicists, not journalists, believers, or theologians, mean by the term "Higgs particle" or "Higgs boson:"
The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality by Brian Greene. This book was also the subject of a PBS-NOVA science miniseries: Fabric of the Cosmos, viewable online, free.
A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing by Lawrence M. Krauss
How the Higgs Boson Posits a New Story of Our Creation by Lawrence M. Krauss, Newsweek, July 9, 2012
A Blip That Speaks of Our Place in the Universe by Lawrence M. Krauss, The New York Times, Science, July 9, 2012
Nothing Is Negligible: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing by Michael Shermer, eSkeptic, July 11, 2012
I found Greene's and Krauss' books difficult to read but nevertheless was greatly rewarded for my efforts to push through them by the knowledge I gained.
No points lost if you go for the PBS-NOVA miniseries which is an excellent visual, verbal explanation of this complex subject.
Wishing you smooth sailing on the "Higgs ocean!" We live in an extraordinary time of scientific discovery. Embrace it!
June 30, 2012
Rasputin - A Profligate Christian Who Changed The Course Of Russian And European History
Just finished this 500 page tome. Could hardly wait for him to get bumped off. Too long, yes, but if you want insight into what happened in Russian +/- 1900 re. the downfall of the last of the tsars, Russian religious mysticism of that period, Russia
"It had come to pass by the end of 1916. It was neither the bullets of revolutionary terrorists, nor the shells of Germans at the front, but the existence of a single person that was threatening to destroy one of the greatest empires in the world. The opposition, society, the court had all struggled in vain against the illiterate peasant with the awful name from an unknown village."
"Just who was that man (Rasputin) who appeared in the fire of the first revolution (1905) and perished on the eve of the second? He was undoubtedly a deeply religious person. And at the same time a great sinner. With the simplicity of a century of uneducated, ignorant Russian peasantry, he tried to combine the mysterious passions of the body with the teachings of Christ. And he ended up a sectarian, a 'Khlyst,' a profligate, yet at the same time remaining a deeply religious person. He was the epitome of the Russian's staggering ability to live upright within while enveloped in unceasing sin."
See also Rasputin in Wikipedia.
June 25, 2012
Religion - Its Origin And Evolution
Why Did Religion Evolve? by Nigel Barber, Psychology Today, June 13, 2012
The origins of religion are to be found neither in its boost to reproductive fitness and fecundity, as the article above alleges, nor in religion's explanatory power and comfort.
Religion evolved along with other social structures and functions such as leadership (politics) and the distribution of wealth (economics). Primarily it emerged in the earliest stages of Homo's cultural evolution as a means of exerting social influence and control. It agents for establishing such control were its practitioner's who proclaimed their possession of superhuman abilities to understand and control superhuman beings and supernatural processes they alleged existed. They called these supernatural beings gods and their activities the various workings of Nature and the cosmos.
Ancient leadership, from early Homo into the earliest agrarian and urban civilizations, wasted no time in bringing religious cosmology under its firm control as an adjunct to brute force for maintaining control of the group (band, tribe, city, empire, civilization). Since those distant times, for the most part, human leadership has succeeded in maintaining its control over religion. However, today one finds leadership sometimes subordinating itself to religion when it is expedient or otherwise useful for leadership to do so, and one sometimes finds religion touting itself as liberated from leadership and as an empowering worldview of the individual.
Regardless, politics and religion have always been and will remain comfortable bedfellows.
Look for the origins of religion in our early cultural evolution as a form of social control, not in it's Darwinian fitness, solace, or explanatory power. The latter approach, as the above article exemplifies, is a biased speculative glance into our imagined ancient past using the worldview of the present.
As for species' future, the key for human progress, and very likely our and the Earth's survival, is to transform religion away from a focus on the supernatural to a reverence for a secular-scientific, factual understanding of Humankind, Nature, and the cosmos.
The origins of religion are to be found neither in its boost to reproductive fitness and fecundity, as the article above alleges, nor in religion's explanatory power and comfort.
Religion evolved along with other social structures and functions such as leadership (politics) and the distribution of wealth (economics). Primarily it emerged in the earliest stages of Homo's cultural evolution as a means of exerting social influence and control. It agents for establishing such control were its practitioner's who proclaimed their possession of superhuman abilities to understand and control superhuman beings and supernatural processes they alleged existed. They called these supernatural beings gods and their activities the various workings of Nature and the cosmos.
Ancient leadership, from early Homo into the earliest agrarian and urban civilizations, wasted no time in bringing religious cosmology under its firm control as an adjunct to brute force for maintaining control of the group (band, tribe, city, empire, civilization). Since those distant times, for the most part, human leadership has succeeded in maintaining its control over religion. However, today one finds leadership sometimes subordinating itself to religion when it is expedient or otherwise useful for leadership to do so, and one sometimes finds religion touting itself as liberated from leadership and as an empowering worldview of the individual.
Regardless, politics and religion have always been and will remain comfortable bedfellows.
Look for the origins of religion in our early cultural evolution as a form of social control, not in it's Darwinian fitness, solace, or explanatory power. The latter approach, as the above article exemplifies, is a biased speculative glance into our imagined ancient past using the worldview of the present.
As for species' future, the key for human progress, and very likely our and the Earth's survival, is to transform religion away from a focus on the supernatural to a reverence for a secular-scientific, factual understanding of Humankind, Nature, and the cosmos.
June 16, 2012
Are We Nearing A Planetary Boundary?
Disappointed EU Cites Rio+21 Bright Spots, UPI, June 25, 2012
Progress On The Sidelines As Rio Conference Ends by Simon Romero and John M. Broder, The New York Times, Americas, June 23, 2012
Scientists Urge Rio Moves On Population And Consumption by Richard Blac, BBC, June 13, 2012
Are We Nearing A Planetary Boundary? by Justin Gillis, The New York Times, Environment, June 6, 2012
"....the planet is nearing a "state shift," or tipping point, after which a "bubble" of population and economy will be unsustainable...."
Is this the beginning of the global disaster it appears must happen before Homo sapiens will put nationalism and supernaturalism second to science and the needs of all of Humankind, including accepting full responsibility as stewards of the Earth?
Progress On The Sidelines As Rio Conference Ends by Simon Romero and John M. Broder, The New York Times, Americas, June 23, 2012
Scientists Urge Rio Moves On Population And Consumption by Richard Blac, BBC, June 13, 2012
Are We Nearing A Planetary Boundary? by Justin Gillis, The New York Times, Environment, June 6, 2012
"....the planet is nearing a "state shift," or tipping point, after which a "bubble" of population and economy will be unsustainable...."
Is this the beginning of the global disaster it appears must happen before Homo sapiens will put nationalism and supernaturalism second to science and the needs of all of Humankind, including accepting full responsibility as stewards of the Earth?
May 25, 2012
Fundamentalist Christian Apologetics Or A Crusade Against Science?
UPDATE
Religious Products: Prayers and Playthings, The Economist, July 14, 2012. "Religions rarely praise consumerism. But 2.2 billion Christians and 1.6 billion Muslims are a big market. Sales of books on the world’s two biggest faiths are soaring, with interactive Korans and Bibles among the innovative products. Last year sales of religious books in America grew by 8% in a declining industry."
Popular Science Books Take Off: A Big Bang In Physics Publishing by Tom Chivers, The Guardian, September 6, 2010:
"Traditionally, evolutionary biology has received most attention from publishers. As the philosopher and neuroscientist Daniel Dennett says, no area of science has been so well served by its writers: Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould and John Maynard Smith are particularly fine examples.
"But since Dennett wrote that in 1995, evolutionary theory has been fighting for shelf space, as quantum physics and relativity mount a comeback. The past few weeks have seen Stephen Hawking’s new book, The Grand Design, move from the books pages to the front pages with its provocative argument that physicists do not need a creator to explain the universe’s existence. But a reader could equally well pick up We Need to Talk about Kelvin by Marcus Chown; In Search of the Multiverse by John Gribbin; Quantum by Manjit Kumar; Void by Frank Close; and dozens more.
"'There’s a real interest in science books at the moment,' says Stuart Clark, author of The Universe (part of the 'Big Question' series). And it’s not as if they’re light reading. Clark’s own book asks what stars are made from, whether there are alternative universes, what the fate of the universe will be, and whether, à la Hawking, there is cosmological evidence for the existence of God."
ORIGINAL POST
Contemporary fundamentalist Christians continuously and aggressively try to influence American politics and public education. They also try to directly discredit and infuse science with supernaturalism and faith. Their efforts are especially aimed at the foundational tenet of biology and all the life sciences, evolution.
Those around the world who seek a future where all Humankind and our stewardship of Earth is guided by a secular-scientific yet pluralistic global forum, face a monumental challenge. That being the efforts of fundamental Christians and Muslims who aspire to being more than equals in such a pluralistic future. Their faith-based, supernatural views, for example, are not regarded by them to be pluralistic alternatives to scientific-secularism. On the contrary, the views of fundamentalists are seen by the faithful to represent an absolute truth that must, if and when necessary, be imposed on Humankind.
In part, this zealous effort is carried out through the publication of books such as those listed below. This small but nevertheless representative sample of fundamentalist Christian efforts was published between the late 1960s and 2008. I bought them at used bookstores and garage sales in the small, very conservative, predominantly Christian county where I live here in the American South. I was not surprised to discover that most of the books are not simply apologetic approaches to Christianity. They are outright assaults on science. I will gradually be placing comments below each book as I review them in depth. I would be very happy to receive readers' comments on the books and your reactions to my reviews.
Religious Products: Prayers and Playthings, The Economist, July 14, 2012. "Religions rarely praise consumerism. But 2.2 billion Christians and 1.6 billion Muslims are a big market. Sales of books on the world’s two biggest faiths are soaring, with interactive Korans and Bibles among the innovative products. Last year sales of religious books in America grew by 8% in a declining industry."
Popular Science Books Take Off: A Big Bang In Physics Publishing by Tom Chivers, The Guardian, September 6, 2010:
"Traditionally, evolutionary biology has received most attention from publishers. As the philosopher and neuroscientist Daniel Dennett says, no area of science has been so well served by its writers: Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould and John Maynard Smith are particularly fine examples.
"But since Dennett wrote that in 1995, evolutionary theory has been fighting for shelf space, as quantum physics and relativity mount a comeback. The past few weeks have seen Stephen Hawking’s new book, The Grand Design, move from the books pages to the front pages with its provocative argument that physicists do not need a creator to explain the universe’s existence. But a reader could equally well pick up We Need to Talk about Kelvin by Marcus Chown; In Search of the Multiverse by John Gribbin; Quantum by Manjit Kumar; Void by Frank Close; and dozens more.
"'There’s a real interest in science books at the moment,' says Stuart Clark, author of The Universe (part of the 'Big Question' series). And it’s not as if they’re light reading. Clark’s own book asks what stars are made from, whether there are alternative universes, what the fate of the universe will be, and whether, à la Hawking, there is cosmological evidence for the existence of God."
Contemporary fundamentalist Christians continuously and aggressively try to influence American politics and public education. They also try to directly discredit and infuse science with supernaturalism and faith. Their efforts are especially aimed at the foundational tenet of biology and all the life sciences, evolution.
Those around the world who seek a future where all Humankind and our stewardship of Earth is guided by a secular-scientific yet pluralistic global forum, face a monumental challenge. That being the efforts of fundamental Christians and Muslims who aspire to being more than equals in such a pluralistic future. Their faith-based, supernatural views, for example, are not regarded by them to be pluralistic alternatives to scientific-secularism. On the contrary, the views of fundamentalists are seen by the faithful to represent an absolute truth that must, if and when necessary, be imposed on Humankind.
In part, this zealous effort is carried out through the publication of books such as those listed below. This small but nevertheless representative sample of fundamentalist Christian efforts was published between the late 1960s and 2008. I bought them at used bookstores and garage sales in the small, very conservative, predominantly Christian county where I live here in the American South. I was not surprised to discover that most of the books are not simply apologetic approaches to Christianity. They are outright assaults on science. I will gradually be placing comments below each book as I review them in depth. I would be very happy to receive readers' comments on the books and your reactions to my reviews.
May 24, 2012
What I'm Reading
Afrikology, Philosophy and Wholeness: An Epistemology by Dani W. Nabudere, 2011
The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World by Iain McGilchrist, 2009
Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity by Ramond Tallis, 2011
Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals by Frans de Waal, 1996
The Rasputin File by Edvard Radzinsky, 2000
The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World by Iain McGilchrist, 2009
Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity by Ramond Tallis, 2011
Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals by Frans de Waal, 1996
The Rasputin File by Edvard Radzinsky, 2000
May 11, 2012
What's A Woman To Do?
The Worst Places To Be A Woman - Mapping The Places Where The War On Women Is Still Being Fought by Valerie M. Hudson, April 24, 2012Why Do They Hate Us? - The Real War On Women Is In The Middle East by Eltahawy, Foreign Policy, May/June 2012
May 10, 2012
What's An Atheist To Do?
Number of Nonreligious Americans Continues to Increase: One-Fifty Are Atheist, Agnostic, or Believe in Nothing by Jeff Stone, International Business Times, Faith & Belief, July 21, 2012
Indian Atheists See Recogntion In The Land Of A Million Gods by Samuya Sethia, Times of India, June 30, 2012
Atheists, Muslims See Most Bias As Presidential Candidates by Jeffery M. Jones, Gallup, June 21, 2012
One Nation, Another Religion? by Rachel Pridgen, a review of Nonbeliever Nation: The Rise of Secular Americans by David Niose and Religion for Atheists: A Non-believer’s Guide to the Uses of Religion by Alain de Botton, eSkeptic, June 13, 2012
Non-Believers Who Aren't Atheists? by David Niose, Psychology Today, June 4, 2012
Is Atheism Increasing At The Expense of Theism? by Gregory Paul, Science and Religion Today, May 30, 2012
Atheist Nation - Where In The World are all the atheists? by Michael Shermer, eSkeptic, May 8, 2012
Should Atheists Slam Religion Or Show Respect? by Valerie Tarico, AlterNet, May 4, 2012
Indian Atheists See Recogntion In The Land Of A Million Gods by Samuya Sethia, Times of India, June 30, 2012
Atheists, Muslims See Most Bias As Presidential Candidates by Jeffery M. Jones, Gallup, June 21, 2012
One Nation, Another Religion? by Rachel Pridgen, a review of Nonbeliever Nation: The Rise of Secular Americans by David Niose and Religion for Atheists: A Non-believer’s Guide to the Uses of Religion by Alain de Botton, eSkeptic, June 13, 2012
Non-Believers Who Aren't Atheists? by David Niose, Psychology Today, June 4, 2012
Is Atheism Increasing At The Expense of Theism? by Gregory Paul, Science and Religion Today, May 30, 2012
Atheist Nation - Where In The World are all the atheists? by Michael Shermer, eSkeptic, May 8, 2012
Should Atheists Slam Religion Or Show Respect? by Valerie Tarico, AlterNet, May 4, 2012
April 27, 2012
How Not To Write About Africa
Is Africa's Negative Image Justified? by Femi Adewunmi, Pan African Visions, June 2, 2012
How Not To Write About Africa by Laura Seay, Foreign Policy, Argument, April 25, 2012
How Not To Write About Africa by Laura Seay, Foreign Policy, Argument, April 25, 2012
Occasionally African and non-African scholars, and in this case a journalist, write complaining about the poor quality of media coverage of events in Africa. I also complain about this, verbally and in writing. Whereas my focus is on those patronizing aspects of Western attitudes and beliefs (culture) that continue to prefer Africa and its peoples as "wild" and ever seething with "tribal clashes" (a term the BBC is still very fond of), the writer of the link above focuses on another important problem - media management not hiring enough African reporters on the ground. The article also contains a lot of good general information about the continent. Please write your editor and ask him/her to do better.
April 11, 2012
Which Way America?
I recently received the photos below, with captions, from a conservative friend from my high school days.
Many of my fellow Americans long and/or pray for the return of an idealized America
The mostly white, wealthy, Christian conservative Republican leadership, from the 1970s to today, should be credited and blamed for convincing most of the white middle class people in the US America Seven Mountains
The Republicans began this strategy in the 1970s using the Free Speech Movement, the Anti-War Movement, and the Civil Rights Movement, and their mostly liberal, diverse advocates and participants, as whipping posts. The GOP did so to generate support for themselves among middle class whites who aspired to join them in being the wealthy "haves" of our country.
This strategy worked and continues to work today. In fact, many white
Thus the humane ideals of contemporary, ethnically diverse liberals for expanding individual freedom, protecting and assisting the exploited, ensuring equal economic and educational opportunity have become hated "doctrines of socialism."
My experience is that most of those persons in the middle class who subscribe to the Republican view of our nation's social and economic problems and a libertarian solution to them are so convinced of what they have been told to believe they will seldom if ever look at the issues objectively, much less do their own thinking or change their views. It is very much like trying to convince evangelical Christians that there is a preponderance of evidence that Humankind is a product of the same natural processes that gave rise to all other life on earth - you are wasting your time.
My experience is that most of those persons in the middle class who subscribe to the Republican view of our nation's social and economic problems and a libertarian solution to them are so convinced of what they have been told to believe they will seldom if ever look at the issues objectively, much less do their own thinking or change their views. It is very much like trying to convince evangelical Christians that there is a preponderance of evidence that Humankind is a product of the same natural processes that gave rise to all other life on earth - you are wasting your time.
So, here we are. What to do? Someone has to be right here. Which of these approaches to society and ultimately the planet is the most reasonable and sustainable? If you choose "Republicanism" you are selfishly dooming your life, that of our nation, and the health and well-being of planet to the short term. If you choose fiscally conservative yet liberal, diverse global thinking, we have a chance at a long term and more humane future. The former is the pursuit of ourselves and our nostalgic past, winner take all. The latter is a realistic path to survival and happiness for the greatest number of people, as individuals and caretakers of the planet.
For more on this topic, please see my earlier blog post: http://jameselassiter.blogspot.com/2010/10/obama-is-intelligent-well-educated.html
I read the other day where some scientist thinks it's possible to put a man on the moon by the end of the century. They even have some fellows they call astronauts preparing for it down in Texas.
Did you see where some baseball player just signed a contract for $50,000 a year just to play ball? It wouldn't surprise me if someday they'll be making more than the President.
February 20, 2012
Nanocomputing In Your Lifetime?
Physicists Create A Working Transistor From A Single Atom, by John Markoff, The New York Times, Science, February 19, 2011
February 18, 2012
America in Decline?
How Bad Is It? by George Scialabba, a review of books by Morris Berman, The New Inquiry, May 26, 2012
The Rise Or Fall Of The American Empire, Foreign Policy, February 14, 2012
Political Columnists Think America Is In Decline. Big Surprise.
The Rise Or Fall Of The American Empire, Foreign Policy, February 14, 2012
Political Columnists Think America Is In Decline. Big Surprise.
February 16, 2012
Does Quantum Mechanics Support Supernaturalism And Postmodernism?
UPDATE
Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God? by Stephen M. Barr, BQO Big Questions Online, July 10, 2012
Deepak's Dangerous Dogmas by Phil Mole, eSkeptic, June 6, 2012 (originally published in Skeptic magazine volume 6, number 2 (1998). Chopra's conflation of quantum mechanics and human spirituality is an unsupported leap of logic.
ORIGNAL POST
From Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality (2007):
Debate on the issues discussed in this chapter will no doubt continue as we grope to understand what space, time, and spacetime actually are. With the development of quantum mechanics, the plot only thickens. The concepts of empty space and of nothingness take on a whole new meaning when quantum uncertainty takes the stage. Indeed, since 1905, when Einstein did away with the luminiferous aether, the idea that space is filled with invisible substances has waged a vigorous comeback. As we will see in later chapters, key developments in modern physics have reinstituted various forms of an aetherlike entity, none of which set an absolute standard for motion like the original luminiferous aether, but all of which thoroughly challenge the naïve conception of what it means for spacetime to be empty.
...
There is no single, preferred, universal clock; there is no consensus on what constitutes a moment, what constitutes a now. Even so, you can still tell a clockworklike story about the evolving universe. The clock is your clock. The story is your story. But the universe unfolds with the same regularity and predictability as in the Newtonian framework. If by some means you know the state of the universe right now—if you know where every particle is and how fast and in what direction each is moving—then, Newton and Einstein agree, you can, in principle, use the laws of physics to predict everything about the universe arbitrarily far into the future or to figure out what it was like arbitrarily far into the past.
Quantum mechanics breaks with this tradition. We can’t ever know the exact location and exact velocity of even a single particle. We can’t predict with total certainty the outcome of even the simplest of experiments, let alone the evolution of the entire cosmos. Quantum mechanics shows that the best we can ever do is predict the probability that an experiment will turn out this way or that. And as quantum mechanics has been verified through decades of fantastically accurate experiments, the Newtonian cosmic clock, even with its Einsteinian updating, is an untenable metaphor; it is demonstrably not how the world works.
Intervening space, regardless of how much there is, does not ensure that two objects are separate, since quantum mechanics allows an entanglement, a kind of connection, to exist between them. ... the quantum connection between two particles can persist even if they are on opposite sides of the universe. ... Our universe is not local. ... Irish physicist John Bell showed that the issue could be settled experimentally, and by the 1980s it was. The most straightforward reading of the data is that Einstein was wrong and there can be strange, weird, and “spooky” quantum connections between things over here and things over there.
- - - - - -
Having just completed reading Lawrence Krauss' A Universe From Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing (2012) and now halfway through Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality (2007), I fantasized running outside, throwing myself face down, spread eagle on the ground and clinging as best I could with my arms and legs to the surface of our planet; and pleading both in gratitude and fear that I would not be cast into the oblivion of the cosmos, either forward or backward in spacetime.
After returning from this imaginary fit, I now ponder what quantum mechanics and our species' most recent discoveries in physics and cosmology may mean for other less secular-scientific understandings of Humankind's state, past and present, in the cosmos. Spiritualists, pantheists, supernaturalists, paranormalists, religionists, and postmodernists come to mind.
The ideas in physics and cosmology that there is in fact a "substance" to spacetime, some kind of "aether," where a particle in one section of spacetime can directly influence another particle on the opposite side of the universe of spacetime, without having any physical connection with that second particle, that is, no "locality," is astonishing. If these are the most current and accurate inklings scientific secularism has as to the natural laws of the cosmos, have we not, in fact, taken a step back in our efforts to understand these laws? Are not our understandings such as atomic theory as well as the evolution of the cosmos in need of such drastic revision that we must begin to ask if the accidents and contingencies that have occurred at both the sub-atomic and cosmological levels, and the subsequent agencies and emergencies that have taken place, require more of our attention than we have relegated them in the past?
Surely, this is being taken as proof-positive evidence by many non-secular supernaturalists and postmodern relativists that a cosmic power does, in fact, exist - a supernatural power and reality they have been trying to convince ancient thinkers, natural philosophers, and modern scientists of for thousands of years. Their argument might be couched in the following terms: If space has substance and we can predict its actions, past and present, with only a degree of probability rather than certainty, then is it not game up, all understandings of the cosmos, those scientific and those supernatural, are equally valid? That science will either never reach a "certain" understading of the laws of nature, or, if it does, it will be forced to admit the existence of a supernatural power and reality behind the laws that will remain forever beyond science's reach.
Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God? by Stephen M. Barr, BQO Big Questions Online, July 10, 2012
Deepak's Dangerous Dogmas by Phil Mole, eSkeptic, June 6, 2012 (originally published in Skeptic magazine volume 6, number 2 (1998). Chopra's conflation of quantum mechanics and human spirituality is an unsupported leap of logic.
ORIGNAL POST
From Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality (2007):
Debate on the issues discussed in this chapter will no doubt continue as we grope to understand what space, time, and spacetime actually are. With the development of quantum mechanics, the plot only thickens. The concepts of empty space and of nothingness take on a whole new meaning when quantum uncertainty takes the stage. Indeed, since 1905, when Einstein did away with the luminiferous aether, the idea that space is filled with invisible substances has waged a vigorous comeback. As we will see in later chapters, key developments in modern physics have reinstituted various forms of an aetherlike entity, none of which set an absolute standard for motion like the original luminiferous aether, but all of which thoroughly challenge the naïve conception of what it means for spacetime to be empty.
...
There is no single, preferred, universal clock; there is no consensus on what constitutes a moment, what constitutes a now. Even so, you can still tell a clockworklike story about the evolving universe. The clock is your clock. The story is your story. But the universe unfolds with the same regularity and predictability as in the Newtonian framework. If by some means you know the state of the universe right now—if you know where every particle is and how fast and in what direction each is moving—then, Newton and Einstein agree, you can, in principle, use the laws of physics to predict everything about the universe arbitrarily far into the future or to figure out what it was like arbitrarily far into the past.
Quantum mechanics breaks with this tradition. We can’t ever know the exact location and exact velocity of even a single particle. We can’t predict with total certainty the outcome of even the simplest of experiments, let alone the evolution of the entire cosmos. Quantum mechanics shows that the best we can ever do is predict the probability that an experiment will turn out this way or that. And as quantum mechanics has been verified through decades of fantastically accurate experiments, the Newtonian cosmic clock, even with its Einsteinian updating, is an untenable metaphor; it is demonstrably not how the world works.
Intervening space, regardless of how much there is, does not ensure that two objects are separate, since quantum mechanics allows an entanglement, a kind of connection, to exist between them. ... the quantum connection between two particles can persist even if they are on opposite sides of the universe. ... Our universe is not local. ... Irish physicist John Bell showed that the issue could be settled experimentally, and by the 1980s it was. The most straightforward reading of the data is that Einstein was wrong and there can be strange, weird, and “spooky” quantum connections between things over here and things over there.
- - - - - -
Having just completed reading Lawrence Krauss' A Universe From Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing (2012) and now halfway through Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality (2007), I fantasized running outside, throwing myself face down, spread eagle on the ground and clinging as best I could with my arms and legs to the surface of our planet; and pleading both in gratitude and fear that I would not be cast into the oblivion of the cosmos, either forward or backward in spacetime.
After returning from this imaginary fit, I now ponder what quantum mechanics and our species' most recent discoveries in physics and cosmology may mean for other less secular-scientific understandings of Humankind's state, past and present, in the cosmos. Spiritualists, pantheists, supernaturalists, paranormalists, religionists, and postmodernists come to mind.
The ideas in physics and cosmology that there is in fact a "substance" to spacetime, some kind of "aether," where a particle in one section of spacetime can directly influence another particle on the opposite side of the universe of spacetime, without having any physical connection with that second particle, that is, no "locality," is astonishing. If these are the most current and accurate inklings scientific secularism has as to the natural laws of the cosmos, have we not, in fact, taken a step back in our efforts to understand these laws? Are not our understandings such as atomic theory as well as the evolution of the cosmos in need of such drastic revision that we must begin to ask if the accidents and contingencies that have occurred at both the sub-atomic and cosmological levels, and the subsequent agencies and emergencies that have taken place, require more of our attention than we have relegated them in the past?
Surely, this is being taken as proof-positive evidence by many non-secular supernaturalists and postmodern relativists that a cosmic power does, in fact, exist - a supernatural power and reality they have been trying to convince ancient thinkers, natural philosophers, and modern scientists of for thousands of years. Their argument might be couched in the following terms: If space has substance and we can predict its actions, past and present, with only a degree of probability rather than certainty, then is it not game up, all understandings of the cosmos, those scientific and those supernatural, are equally valid? That science will either never reach a "certain" understading of the laws of nature, or, if it does, it will be forced to admit the existence of a supernatural power and reality behind the laws that will remain forever beyond science's reach.
Where Do New Biological Species Come From?
An interesting refresher on speciation in eSkeptic: Darwin's Legacy by Donald R. Prothero, eSkeptic, February 15, 2012
The False Allure of Group Selection by Steven Pinker, Edge, June 18, 2012
The False Allure of Group Selection by Steven Pinker, Edge, June 18, 2012
The American Religious Fundamentalist and Political Conservative Assault on Science, Reason and Democracy
SUGGESTED READING:
In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins by Frank Newport, Gallup.com, June 1, 2012
The Right-Wing Media's Discipline Machine by Ben Adler, The Columbia Journalism Review, February 15, 2012
White House's Budget Gets Down To Earth by Allen Boyle, Cosmic Log on MSNBC, February 13, 2012
The Legacy of 9/11 and the War on Intellectuals by Stephen Zunes, truthout, September 10, 2011
The Years of Shame by Paul Krugman, CommonDreams.org, September 11, 2011
It's Long Past Time to Get Over 9-11 by Mark Karlin, Buzzflash, September 11, 2011
War: The Fiscal Stimulus of Last Resort by Ellen Brown, truthout, Sepember 12, 2011
Disbelief Is Not A Choice by Dave Niose, Psychology Today, September 12, 2011
The Terrorism Issue That Wasn't Discussed by Gareth Porter, Commondreams.org, September 12, 2011
Why The Anti-Science Creationist Movement Is So Dangerous by Adam Lee, AlterNet, September 8, 2011
A Fundamental Republican Problem by Andrew C. Revkin, The New York Times, Opinion Pages, August 22, 2011
A Teacher on the Frontline as Faith and Science Clash by Amy Harmon, The New York Times, Education, August 23, 2008
The Fall of the United States by John Atcheson, Commondreams.org, September 15, 2011
The Phony Solyndra Solar Scandal by Dave Johnson, truthout, September 15, 2011
Between Race and Reason: Anti-Intellectualism in Americam Life by Susan Searls Giroux, from her book of the same name, September 16, 2011
What If The Tea Party Wins? by Ian Millhiser, Center for American Progress, September 16, 2011
A Point of View: The Revolution of Capitalism by John Gray, BBC News Magazine, September 3, 2011
The Responsibility of Intellectuals, Redux by Noam Chomsky, Boston Review, September/October 2011
Free to Die by Paul Krugman, The New York Times, Opinion Pages, September 15, 2011
The Unseen Influence of the Religious Right by Dave Niose, Psychology Today, July 11, 2011
As Religion Fades, Will Atheism Be Enough? by Dave Niose, Psychology Today, July 21, 2011
Concerns About the Religious Right Are Not Overblown by Dave Niose, Psychology Today, August 23, 2011
The Truth About Class Warfare in America by Richard Wolff, Commondreams.org, September 20, 2011
Let's Explore the History of "Class Warfare" by Myles Spicer, The Minneapolis StarTribune, September 24, 2011
Notes on Class Warfare by Paul Krugman, The New York Times, Opinion, September 20, 2011
9 Policies Conservatives Were For Before They Were Against Them by Joshua Holland, Alternet, September 21, 2011
Conservatives Say It Out Loud: They Hate Democracy by Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future, September 23, 2011
The Social Contract by Paul Krugman, The New York Times, Opinion Pages, September 20, 2011
Denialist Demogogues and the Threat to Science by Donald R. Prothero, a review of The Inquisition of Climate Science by James L. Powell, eSkeptic, September 28, 2011
Government Neutrality is Not "Anti-Religion" by Dave Niose, Psychology Today, October 3, 2011
How the Oligarchs Took America
We Live in Perilous Times for Science by Elizabeth Loftus, The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, May/June 2011
Conservatism: Screwing the Poor, Elderly, Sick and Disabled by Al Stefanelli, examiner, October 7, 2011
The Myth of American Exceptionalism by Stephen M. Walt, Foreign Policy, November 2011
Punching a Hole in Bubbles of Denial and Addiction: Late Capitalism and Its Discontents of the American Autumn by Phil Rockstoth, Common Dreams, October 13, 2011
Religion in the Affairs of Man: Mixing Theology and Politics by Jeff Schweitzer, Huffington Post, January 22, 2010
Seven Republican Economic Lies
Twilight of the GOP Foreign Policy Wise Man by Jacob Heilbrunn, Foreign Policy Magazine, October 12, 2011
Science by Think Tank: The Rise of Think Tanks and Decline of Public Intellectuals by Massimo Pigliucci, eSkeptic, October 19, 2011
Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science From Bunk by Massimo Pigliucci, 2010
Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science From Bunk by Massimo Pigliucci, 2010, an excerpt on eSkeptic, October 19, 2011
The Evangelical Rejection of Reason by Karl W. Giberson and Randall J. Stephens, The New York Times, The Opinion Pages, October 17, 2011
Can Science and Faith Exist Together?, Letters, The New York Times, The Opinion Pages, October 24, 2011
The Un-American War On Science by Shawn Lawrence Otto, Huffington Post, October 28, 2011
In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins by Frank Newport, Gallup.com, June 1, 2012
The Right-Wing Media's Discipline Machine by Ben Adler, The Columbia Journalism Review, February 15, 2012
White House's Budget Gets Down To Earth by Allen Boyle, Cosmic Log on MSNBC, February 13, 2012
The Legacy of 9/11 and the War on Intellectuals by Stephen Zunes, truthout, September 10, 2011
The Years of Shame by Paul Krugman, CommonDreams.org, September 11, 2011
It's Long Past Time to Get Over 9-11 by Mark Karlin, Buzzflash, September 11, 2011
War: The Fiscal Stimulus of Last Resort by Ellen Brown, truthout, Sepember 12, 2011
Disbelief Is Not A Choice by Dave Niose, Psychology Today, September 12, 2011
The Terrorism Issue That Wasn't Discussed by Gareth Porter, Commondreams.org, September 12, 2011
Why The Anti-Science Creationist Movement Is So Dangerous by Adam Lee, AlterNet, September 8, 2011
A Fundamental Republican Problem by Andrew C. Revkin, The New York Times, Opinion Pages, August 22, 2011
A Teacher on the Frontline as Faith and Science Clash by Amy Harmon, The New York Times, Education, August 23, 2008
The Fall of the United States by John Atcheson, Commondreams.org, September 15, 2011
The Phony Solyndra Solar Scandal by Dave Johnson, truthout, September 15, 2011
Between Race and Reason: Anti-Intellectualism in Americam Life by Susan Searls Giroux, from her book of the same name, September 16, 2011
What If The Tea Party Wins? by Ian Millhiser, Center for American Progress, September 16, 2011
A Point of View: The Revolution of Capitalism by John Gray, BBC News Magazine, September 3, 2011
The Responsibility of Intellectuals, Redux by Noam Chomsky, Boston Review, September/October 2011
Free to Die by Paul Krugman, The New York Times, Opinion Pages, September 15, 2011
The Unseen Influence of the Religious Right by Dave Niose, Psychology Today, July 11, 2011
As Religion Fades, Will Atheism Be Enough? by Dave Niose, Psychology Today, July 21, 2011
Concerns About the Religious Right Are Not Overblown by Dave Niose, Psychology Today, August 23, 2011
The Truth About Class Warfare in America by Richard Wolff, Commondreams.org, September 20, 2011
Let's Explore the History of "Class Warfare" by Myles Spicer, The Minneapolis StarTribune, September 24, 2011
Notes on Class Warfare by Paul Krugman, The New York Times, Opinion, September 20, 2011
9 Policies Conservatives Were For Before They Were Against Them by Joshua Holland, Alternet, September 21, 2011
Conservatives Say It Out Loud: They Hate Democracy by Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future, September 23, 2011
The Social Contract by Paul Krugman, The New York Times, Opinion Pages, September 20, 2011
Denialist Demogogues and the Threat to Science by Donald R. Prothero, a review of The Inquisition of Climate Science by James L. Powell, eSkeptic, September 28, 2011
Government Neutrality is Not "Anti-Religion" by Dave Niose, Psychology Today, October 3, 2011
How the Oligarchs Took America
We Live in Perilous Times for Science by Elizabeth Loftus, The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, May/June 2011
Conservatism: Screwing the Poor, Elderly, Sick and Disabled by Al Stefanelli, examiner, October 7, 2011
The Myth of American Exceptionalism by Stephen M. Walt, Foreign Policy, November 2011
Punching a Hole in Bubbles of Denial and Addiction: Late Capitalism and Its Discontents of the American Autumn by Phil Rockstoth, Common Dreams, October 13, 2011
Religion in the Affairs of Man: Mixing Theology and Politics by Jeff Schweitzer, Huffington Post, January 22, 2010
Seven Republican Economic Lies
Twilight of the GOP Foreign Policy Wise Man by Jacob Heilbrunn, Foreign Policy Magazine, October 12, 2011
Science by Think Tank: The Rise of Think Tanks and Decline of Public Intellectuals by Massimo Pigliucci, eSkeptic, October 19, 2011
Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science From Bunk by Massimo Pigliucci, 2010
Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science From Bunk by Massimo Pigliucci, 2010, an excerpt on eSkeptic, October 19, 2011
The Evangelical Rejection of Reason by Karl W. Giberson and Randall J. Stephens, The New York Times, The Opinion Pages, October 17, 2011
Can Science and Faith Exist Together?, Letters, The New York Times, The Opinion Pages, October 24, 2011
The Un-American War On Science by Shawn Lawrence Otto, Huffington Post, October 28, 2011
January 31, 2012
DNA Research Reveals More And More About Human Origins
DNA, 1947, The New York Times, Science, Nicholas Bakalar, February 27, 2012
Gains in DNA Are Speeding Research Into Human Origins
January 26, 2012
No "Arab Spring" Needed In Sub-Saharan Africa - I Agree
Does Africa Need An Arab Spring? by George Ayittey, BBC, January 24, 2011
January 24, 2012
The Virtues - Is Honesty In Decline?
With this essay I am beginning a new series of posts on the virtues. I am prompted to do so from my experience of writing Secular Truth and Morality: Being Virtuous, Happy, and At Peace Without God and Religion. Motivation to do so also comes from my current reading of Andre Comte-Sponville's A Small Treatise on the Great Virtues.
For now I will postpone discussing the meaning of "virtue" in the evolution of Humakind, and commenting on "honesty" as discussed in the following. More soon....
Our Debt To The Greeks by Brendan Boyle, The Wall Street Journal, Bookshelf, July 13, 2012, a review of Pursuits of Reason: Six Ways of Life From Socrates to Plotinus by John M. Cooper (2012)
One Virtue At A Time, Please by Alan Ryan, a review of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness Reframed: Educating for the Virtues in the Twenty-First Century
(2012)
by Howard Gardner
The Death of Honesty, Defining Ideas, A Hoover Institution Journal, January 12, 2011
For now I will postpone discussing the meaning of "virtue" in the evolution of Humakind, and commenting on "honesty" as discussed in the following. More soon....
Our Debt To The Greeks by Brendan Boyle, The Wall Street Journal, Bookshelf, July 13, 2012, a review of Pursuits of Reason: Six Ways of Life From Socrates to Plotinus by John M. Cooper (2012)
One Virtue At A Time, Please by Alan Ryan, a review of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness Reframed: Educating for the Virtues in the Twenty-First Century
(2012) by Howard Gardner
The Death of Honesty, Defining Ideas, A Hoover Institution Journal, January 12, 2011
January 6, 2012
Humankind Evolving: Navigating "Windows" Of Opportunity Into Survival Or Extinction
UPDATE: Here's a great writeup on the Toba volcano eruption and its probable impact on human evolution @ 60,000BP - Toba Catastrophe Theory.
ORIGINAL POST
At the end of Wednesday evening's regular meeting of Fayette Freethinkers here in north central Georgia we ventured into the very murky matter of the future of Humankind. A fellow member asked for more details about an assertion I made. In the course of the discussion I boldly and somewhat naively allowed my right brain holistic hopes elbow out my left brain parsimony, as usual.
ORIGINAL POST
At the end of Wednesday evening's regular meeting of Fayette Freethinkers here in north central Georgia we ventured into the very murky matter of the future of Humankind. A fellow member asked for more details about an assertion I made. In the course of the discussion I boldly and somewhat naively allowed my right brain holistic hopes elbow out my left brain parsimony, as usual.
I asserted that our species has a successful track record of passing through a number of narrow evolutionary "passages" - to get through some of these we used our brains, others our tools, others our feet, and still others we were just plain lucky. That this success rate was a good enough reason for me to be optimistic about Humankind passing through the current window of evolutionary "trial" - tribalism, nationalism, "religionism", and environmental willful ignorance and indifference, and their various consequences such as war and life-threatening pollution.
Fortunately, in my zeal, I was coherent enough to make clear that my optimistic view of Humankind's future was probabilistic, not one of certainty. After all, evolutionarily, our species is batting a thousand in American baseball parlance. We could, however, very easily, through our own efforts or lack of effort, or due to causes beyond our control, not make it through another window such as the one we are now facing. It's of course every person's choice as to where s/he thinks our species will end up - be optimistic about our species' survival and work to help make it come about, or be pessimistic that we won't, do nothing about it, and await the realization of the gloom and doom we fear and the fate of extinction 99% of life on Earth has succumbed to.
At the meeting, a small, casual and professionally and politically diverse group of "freethinkers", I presented the example of the vanguard of our fully human ancestors in the Horn of Africa @ 60,000BP, numbering less than a few thousand at the time. This group, their backs turned to the increasingly arid environment of the Horn and the rest of East and Southern Africa, nevertheless successfully migrated through what appears to be a route near the mouth of the Red Sea into South Asia and thereby avoided extinction. Their improbable penchant for "success" ultimately allowed our species to establish populations in the rest of Asia, Australasia and Europe, and ultimately back in Africa.
Christopher Hitchens once cited this example from our incredible list of good fortunes claiming that the total population of Homo sapiens alive at 60,000BP had declined to less than 2,000 individuals (click here). I have so far been unable to find a reference that supports this very low number. [If any of you know one please let me know.] It is likely an extrapolation from DNA or mitochondrial statistical analysis. For now, here is an excellent article published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on the subject: Why Did Human Populations Disperse From Africa 60,000 Years Ago? A New Model by Paul Mellars.
For more on this topic see my posts, The Driving Forces of Human Evolution - A Reading List, Cultural Evolution, Phase II - Establishing A Unified Worldview, and Human Evolution: Expansion Of Humans Out Of Africa Into Asia Earlier Than Previously Known. I will also be posting more on this topic in the coming months.
Happy 2012!
January 4, 2012
Does Science Make Belief In God Obsolete? - A Reply By Christopher Hitchens
Will Science Someday Rule Out The Possibility Of God? by Natalie Wolchover, Life's Little Mysteries, September 17, 2012
Is Religion Just A Downer?, by Nigel Barber, Psychology Today, February 16, 2012
No, But It Should by Christopher Hitchens, eSkeptic, January 4, 2012
Is Religion Just A Downer?, by Nigel Barber, Psychology Today, February 16, 2012
No, But It Should by Christopher Hitchens, eSkeptic, January 4, 2012
December 24, 2011
Happy Holidays And Prosperous New Year!
Like many of my American friends who have lived and worked among the various gracious peoples of Africa, especially in the rural areas of that great continent, I have been the grateful recipient of more fresh gift chickens than I can count. All of them cage-free, free-roaming, bug-eating, and delicious, of course. This one is a Holiday Gift for all of my friends and family in Africa, America and 'round the world. He's a fresh Ugandan bird wrapped in banana leaves with a plastic bag 'round his rear to keep your place clean until you are ready for him.... Happy Holidays and Prosperous New Year!
December 12, 2011
Neuroeconomics? - Neuroscience No Panacea For Understanding Humankind
UPDATE
How Reliable Are The Social Sciences? by Gary Gutting, The New York Times, The Opinionator, May 17, 2012
The Value of Social Science by Elizabeth Clark-Polner and Margaret Clark, The New York Times, The Opinion Pages, May 18, 2012
Overcoming "Physics Envy" by Kevin A. Clarke and David M. Primo, The New York Times, Sunday Review, The Opinion Pages, March 30, 2012
The Neuroeconomics Revolution by Robert J. Shiller, Project Syndicate - A World of Ideas, November 21, 2011
From Konrad Lorenz's ethology of the 1950s to the sociobiology of the 1970s to the "new" neurosciences beginning in the 1990s there seems to be no end to the desire to link societal functions and their underlying cultural beliefs and values to the anatomy and physiology of the human brain and/or the biochemistry of our DNA. Here's an incomplete but representative list of assertions made over the past two decades giving clear evidence that behavioral science explanations of human behavior and societal functioning are being passed over in favor of a reductionist, deterministic neuroscience and genetics that explain by describing neuronal or chromosomal locations and activities:
The Y chromosome causes violence to be higher in males than females.
Homosexuality has a genetic basis.
There's a gene that predisposes us to a belief in God.
Brain activity shows we make decisions before we are conscious of them.
Around the beginning of the 20th century, when the new behavioral sciences, beginning with Freud in psychology, Durkheim in sociology and Boas in anthropology and others in these disciplines, had taken human social and cultural behavior from 19th century armchair speculation and placed it in the labs, couches, and ethnographic present of science and thereby encumbered the study of Humankind with the scientific method of objective, testable, and replicable observation and experiment, expectations within the academy and society at large went sky high.
Surely, academics thought, we will one day have a physics and chemistry of human behavior, an anthropology in the strictest sense of the term. Meanwhile, humanists in the arts and literature, including humanistically-inclined thinkers in the behavioral sciences, continued on in a tradition begun during The Renaissance and extended during The Enlightenment by practitioners of what later became known as the academic disciplines of history, modern philosophy, art, literature and music. Their conviction was and remains that human psychic, cultural, and social life can be adequately described, portrayed, and explained holistically without deterministically reducing it to physics and chemistry.
Scientifically-inclined behavioral scientists on the other hand, suffering from what a friend of mine calls "physics envy" or perhaps finding the pursuit of another grand theory such as Darwin's irresistible, embarked on a search for experimental and observational data that would reveal the "laws" of human behavior. Scientific theories of mind, society and culture began to abound. Some were grand theories purporting to explain all, others proffered more modest models and descriptions of specific aspects of how we think, how we organize and behave as groups, and how we learn, use and change the various beliefs and values that make up cultures.
How Reliable Are The Social Sciences? by Gary Gutting, The New York Times, The Opinionator, May 17, 2012
The Value of Social Science by Elizabeth Clark-Polner and Margaret Clark, The New York Times, The Opinion Pages, May 18, 2012
Overcoming "Physics Envy" by Kevin A. Clarke and David M. Primo, The New York Times, Sunday Review, The Opinion Pages, March 30, 2012
The Neuroeconomics Revolution by Robert J. Shiller, Project Syndicate - A World of Ideas, November 21, 2011
From Konrad Lorenz's ethology of the 1950s to the sociobiology of the 1970s to the "new" neurosciences beginning in the 1990s there seems to be no end to the desire to link societal functions and their underlying cultural beliefs and values to the anatomy and physiology of the human brain and/or the biochemistry of our DNA. Here's an incomplete but representative list of assertions made over the past two decades giving clear evidence that behavioral science explanations of human behavior and societal functioning are being passed over in favor of a reductionist, deterministic neuroscience and genetics that explain by describing neuronal or chromosomal locations and activities:
The Y chromosome causes violence to be higher in males than females.
Homosexuality has a genetic basis.
There's a gene that predisposes us to a belief in God.
Brain activity shows we make decisions before we are conscious of them.
Around the beginning of the 20th century, when the new behavioral sciences, beginning with Freud in psychology, Durkheim in sociology and Boas in anthropology and others in these disciplines, had taken human social and cultural behavior from 19th century armchair speculation and placed it in the labs, couches, and ethnographic present of science and thereby encumbered the study of Humankind with the scientific method of objective, testable, and replicable observation and experiment, expectations within the academy and society at large went sky high.
Surely, academics thought, we will one day have a physics and chemistry of human behavior, an anthropology in the strictest sense of the term. Meanwhile, humanists in the arts and literature, including humanistically-inclined thinkers in the behavioral sciences, continued on in a tradition begun during The Renaissance and extended during The Enlightenment by practitioners of what later became known as the academic disciplines of history, modern philosophy, art, literature and music. Their conviction was and remains that human psychic, cultural, and social life can be adequately described, portrayed, and explained holistically without deterministically reducing it to physics and chemistry.
Scientifically-inclined behavioral scientists on the other hand, suffering from what a friend of mine calls "physics envy" or perhaps finding the pursuit of another grand theory such as Darwin's irresistible, embarked on a search for experimental and observational data that would reveal the "laws" of human behavior. Scientific theories of mind, society and culture began to abound. Some were grand theories purporting to explain all, others proffered more modest models and descriptions of specific aspects of how we think, how we organize and behave as groups, and how we learn, use and change the various beliefs and values that make up cultures.
November 20, 2011
Free Will - Why Do Many Neuroscientists Say There Is No Such Thing?
UPDATE
Brain Might Not Stand in the Way of Free Will by Anil Ananthaswamy, New Scientist, August 8, 2012
Free Will and "Free Will": How My View Differs from Daniel Dennett's by Sam Harris, The Blog, April 5, 2012
The Illusion of Free Will by Sam Harris, Excerpt from Free Will, February 12, 2012
ORIGINAL POST
Is Neuroscience the Death of Free Will? by Eddy Nahmias, The New York Times, The Opinion Pages, November 13, 2011
I have never accepted neuroscientist Sam Harris' claim in his books and on his blog that free will is an illusion. I knew there was something wrong in his extrapolation from neuroscience to how we make decisions: the brain processes information subconsciously; this subconscious activity has been shown to be the precursor to decision making; this in turn makes conscious consideration of information a mere after the fact reflection or projection of such decisions. It seems to me Harris is using neuroscience to beat the dead horse of dualism: brain=subconscious decision-maker=no role for the conscious mind=to think mind is free to or has a role in making decisions is an illusion.
I've been puzzling for some time on how to articulate my objections to Harris regarding free will but have been unable to put my thoughts together as well as philosopher Eddy Nahmias has in this link. I am a monist. Brain, decision-making and mind are one. But I reject Harris' idea that all we need to really understand is a detailed understanding of the neurology of decision-making; that a belief that our conscious mind is involved in decision making is a illusion, or more accurately a delusion or self-deception. Nahmias' article expresses my objections to Harris' and other so inclined much better than I ever could.
The implications for the value of human freedom and, conversely, absolving the individual of moral and legal responsibility if Harris' and other like-minded scientists prevail in such reductionism are staggering. I can also see how religious fundamentalists could latch on to Harris' idea and impute God's will into the neurology of the brain - after all, God made our brains and knows our thoughts and decisions before we think about them or make them.
For more on "free will" see my previous post: Free Will: Of course we have it! Don't we?
For more on "free will" see my previous post: Free Will: Of course we have it! Don't we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)