Amateurs!

Over at BioLogos, , Karl Giberson has a post complaining about Jerry Coyne's representation of religious belief. Specifically, that Coyne is arguing against popular, man-in-the-street religion instead of the expert version held by theologians (such as Giberson?). He likens this to attacking science and targeting the uninformed ideas held by ordinary people, instead of the serious arguments of well-educated scientists.

There is a serious argument in there, but you need to clear away some rubbish first.

In describing the low standards of scientific thinking of ordinary people, Giberson claims most of them would accept astrology, dowsing, UFOs and aliens, etc - and therefore provide targets for an anti-science argument. This would make sense as an analogy only if Coyne had been dismissing Christianity because its believers also accepted astrology. I've only ever heard this argument used to dismiss the "millions of people believe in Christianity" line - which Giberson is implicitly throwing away here as well. Apparently most people don't understand Christianity well enough to have an opinion on it.

But underneath that, it is certainly true that many people accept science without really understanding it, and would get large parts of it wrong if asked. What's the difference, then?

For one thing, the people who are actually practicing science, using it to make decisions that affect other people, and building the iPhones and the space rockets, are all pretty well trained in the science they're using. Whereas the people who do most of the work of Christianity are these ordinary folk - the ones who try to get Creationism into schools and stop gays from marrying. If, as Giberson seems to want, we confined religion to the theologically well-trained people who are apparently qualified to have an opinion, then there would be no "God Delusion" book, because Richard Dawkins would have moved on to more important targets than a handful of largely ignored theologians; he'd probably be attacking astrology instead (ironically enough). And Jerry Coyne would not have thought it necessary to write "Why Evolution Is True" because no-one would be trying to corrupt biology education. If we confined the practicing of science to those well trained in it... well, actually, we try to.

For another, when you've finished asking ordinary people about the critical theories of science and religion, try telling them that some professor of physics or theology says they're wrong, and here's the real answer. For religion, you will get a lot of angry responses about liberal academics and moral corruption. The word "atheist" will probably be used - a lot of these well-trained theologians are hard to distinguish from atheists, at least to my poorly-educated ear. For science, most of your respondents will back off, denying thorough knowledge of all those complicated science topics. Why? Do the science types have their followers more cowed? No, most people are ignorant of a lot of science, but they know that they are ignorant. Religion is supposed to be understandable by the common man, and most people believe they do understand it.

More importantly, science has a well-accepted way of arriving at an agreed answer - and religion most certainly does not. That is why there is, by and large, only one science, and lots of religions and sects and denominations. And it is why scientific controversies tend to die down over time; anything interesting accumulates evidence and careful thinking; possibilities are ruled out, and one theory is left standing. Global warming is controversial now, but in a hundred years it will be firmly accepted (or forgotten, on the slim chance that it really is rubbish). Smoking causes lung cancer; continents move; germs cause disease; the earth orbits the sun.

If a popular "Scientist" movement was trying to get astrology introduced in the classrooms, Dawkins and Coyne would no doubt be first to the barricades. If the misconceptions of ordinary folk were being used instead of actual science, we would *want* someone to write "Science Is Not Great", to try to get real science back into the mainstream. If Karl Giberson wishes to promote a dialog between science and faith, the first thing he needs to do is train up all these ignorant rank and file types so they leave behind their naive conceptions of a personal God, and understand what Christianity is really about.

Good luck with that, Karl.

Clowns to the left of me...

The Shirley Sherrod affair is unfortunately a nutshell of the current state of US politics: liars on one side, cowards on the other. This time it's a bit more obvious than usual, but this kind of thing has been getting worse and worse for as long as I've been reading about politics. It's surprising to me that the concentration of sins is following party lines so much. Bill Clinton had the "lying" bit down pat, but even he seemed to be lying to avoid consequences, rather than deliberately setting out to lie. Or perhaps it is just my partisan biases showing through; maybe right-wing nutcases rail at Republicans for being cowards, and fume that Democrat liars derail the policies the country needs.

Whatever it is, US politics needs a shakeup. What will that be - campaign finance reform? Preferential voting? The launch of a new party, Fedex-style, across the US - in the true capitalist manner?

Actually, I think it will be the collapse of US power that forces reform. US politics lives in a dream-land at present, where the country is too big to fail and the rest of the world will keep lending it money. Eventually reality will intrude, and there will be no choice but to deal with it. It will not be pretty, and I can only hope it will be no worse than Russia's fall from world power.

The collapse of a nuclear-armed country with delusions of grandeur is a moment of great danger for everyone within ICBM range, which is everyone.

Burn it!

Lots of fuss recently about people burning things. Some preacher from Florida wanting to burn a Koran; an Australian smoking one (if I understood it correctly). Then there was "Draw Mohammed" day a little while ago. I commented previously about flag-burning and wafer desecration; I feel like I'm due an update. So, first things first.

Should it be banned?

Well, that's an easy one. No. If you want to go off to a book store, buy a book, and dispose of it, that's your right. It's your property. Millions of Korans and Bibles get disposed of every year and no-one gets excited. Drawing a cartoon that some consider sacrilegious is much the same; it's an important part of our freedoms that others cannot impose their religious beliefs on you.

But it endangers our troops abroad!

No, violent religious fanatics are endangering our troops abroad. We do not leave our freedoms to be defined by violent fanatics of any kind, at home or abroad. If they can't distinguish between an entire diverse country and one obscure little church, they're no better than those who tar all Muslims as terrorists.

Well then, should they do it?

That depends what they're trying to do. PZ wanted to illustrate that no object is sacred, something I happen to agree with wholeheartedly, both from a humanist and a religious perspective. To do so, he did something that a lot of Catholics would have interpreted as pure hostility; I'm still somewhat conflicted about whether that conveyed the desired message. But that's PZ's choice. It's perhaps noteworthy that he included a page of the Koran in that stunt, and the sky did not fall in.

Our Floridian pastor appears to want to convey a message of pure hostility towards Islam, so he's chosen the right option. I think he's a small-minded example of much that is detestable about religion, but that's not because he's burning a book; it's because of the message he's trying to convey with it.

The "Draw Mohammed" people wanted to show that yes, we have freedom of speech and we're prepared to defend it. They chose Mohammed because that was the issue that the fuss was about - the reason why people had been attacked and even killed. Their action was peaceful, even humorous (I don't doubt some people got involved out of anti-Islamic feeling, but that's their right too).

And the Australian guy appears to have been making a joke to illustrate his disrespect for holy books. If that's the message he wanted to send, well, that's his right.

What about all the condemnation?

US leaders really have to condemn the Pastor guy, so as to ensure that it is easy (at least for the fair-minded) to distinguish between country and nutcase. But the reason this becomes an issue is because the media made such a big deal of it.... so the public reaction becomes a big deal as well. Bigoted religious nuts don't deserve publicity, and the less they get the better.

What about the reactions?

Just chill out, people. It's a book. There are most likely more than a billion Korans on the planet; another can be printed to replace each one that is burned. Let us start worrying when someone tries to confiscate other people's Korans to burn. And rioting? With people killed? Seriously? Anywhere that considers a copy of some mass-produced item as more important than a human life is a nut-hatch.

And in conclusion: if we could all stop treating inanimate objects as being more important than people's lives and happiness, the world would be a better place. It might not be any less religious - plenty of religious people share my opinions on this - but anything that channels religious impulses towards civilization and away from insanity is an excellent thing.

Theory of mind

If I am driving along the road and I see your car preparing to turn into that same road, I will pay attention to it. If I see you starting to roll your car into the intersection, I will wonder if you have seen my car. And I will slow down, so that if you pull out in front of me, I will have some chance of swerving, braking, or otherwise avoiding you. It will take me longer to get past you, and your trip will be delayed by an amount comparable to (but probably greater than) whatever time you save by getting a rolling start into the intersection.
So it will do you little or no good; it may even harm you. It certainly raises my blood pressure, as imminent collision is wont to do. You may know that you have seen me and will not be hitting me; but from where I sit you are indistinguishable from the incompetent who nearly ran me off the road last week, or year, or month.
Theory of mind. Not even unique to humans, but also possessed by other species much less intelligence-specialized than us. Use it.

Homeopathy works!

Waiting at the vitamin shop the other day I noticed a shelf of homeopathic remedies. One of them caught my eye - it was a stress-relief formulation. Along with all the 5C and 10C substances listed in the ingredients, there was this:

Contains ethanol.

Yes, all you have to do is take a large enough dose. At 20ml per bottle, you might need to stock up, though.

What kind of sports fan are you?

It's grand final day. Your team and their opponents have been close all season. The news comes through that their star player has been injured. What's your reaction?

1. We're going to win!
2. I hope he's not badly hurt.
3. That's a shame - now the game will not be such a high standard.
4. When we win, they're going to claim it was just because of the injury.

I must admit, my reaction is a lot of 1, a bit of 2 and 4, and very little of 3. I'm a tribal sports fan. I don't find a game as enjoyable if I'm not backing one of the teams (I will generally find some trivial reason to back one of them if I don't know who they are).

The pure sports fan will be a combination of 2 and 3 - and mostly 2 because they're hoping to see the star back next season. Non-sports fans will be almost all 2, if they notice at all, unless the aforementioned star has a history of being a jerk of some kind.

This is all fine when it comes to sports. It doesn't really matter what I yell at my TV in the privacy of my own home, and the trivial reasons I choose to back teams are equally unimportant. When it comes to politics, it doesn't work so well.

I am a follower of politics. I'm not a complete junky - but I generally know who's who, what the issues are, and who's winning. My aims in following politics are all about how the country/state/area should be governed - what's the best policy, who should I vote for, and who should I be writing angry or supportive letters to (and what about). Admirable goals that I think everyone should share.

But I do generally have an opinion on which party at each level is doing the best job of representing my views. And that's where the tribal part comes in. The tribal brain says "these are my guys", and it rejoices when some notable on the other side is caught in a scandal. It screams at the ref when the other side makes a stupid argument, and ignores those made by the other side.

In politics, option 3 (and some of 2, because we are all humans) is the best one; options 1 and 4 are just not helpful.

I try to stay that way. I try to turn down the tribal brain, because it is rare for any political party to be entirely good and right, or entirely bad and evil. It's hard work. With some individuals, particularly, it is hard to imagine that anything they have to say could be worth listening to (no names, no pack drill). But if you think that way, you will miss good arguments.

So here's an exercise for this week- whatever side of politics you support (even if it's "they're all crooks"), find a policy that "the bad guys" support on which they are actually right, or at least have a better argument than "the good guys". If you can't find one, you probably need to cut back on the Kool-aid.

Because the winner actually isn't as important as how the game is played. If "they" win but they implement all the right policies, we win.

Doing Bad Things

Previously I have suggested that when you are at war with another country (declared or not), sometimes Bad Things Have to Be Done, and that I was prepared to cut governments some slack in deciding whether they were trustworthy or dangerous.

Lately an excellent example of what I mean has hit the headlines, with the (alleged) Israeli assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. Now, I'm going to make some assumptions in discussing this. Namely:

• The Israelis (Mossad, most likely) really did assassinate him.
• He was involved in obtaining weapons and explosives for Hamas
• Hamas has as its aim the destruction of Israel as a state.
• I'm not going to go into the rights and wrongs of where the borders of Israel should be.

Assassinating a citizen of another country, while in a third country, and travelling under false passports from several other countries, is likely to annoy a lot of people. There is no trial involved; bad precedents are set; lots of laws are broken. It's pretty much the opposite of due process. And it's effectively the imposition of the death penalty, which I am opposed to for a number of reasons.

Considered as an act of war, however, it can be seen as the deliberate killing of a declared opponent. This is something that there is a great deal of in wartime. If we compare it the the usual outcomes of battles (especially those in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), this one can be seen as relatively bloodless and carefully targeted. Nobody else was killed or even wounded, and there was no destruction of property.

So this is an example of what I meant by that. If you can substantially damage your enemy's ability to fight, with limited and targeted casualties, then it is arguably just as moral as warfare to do so.

The precedents you set must also be considered, however. If Hamas in future assassinated a warlike Israeli politician, then the only cover Israel would have for complaint was their claim that they weren't involved in this assassination, which as far as I can tell nobody on the planet believes. I'm not sure if that's a bad thing or not.

More importantly, there are the results. One of the key drivers for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it seems to me, is the belief by some on both sides that if they keep the fight going for long enough, they can get a better deal. The Israelis who think this way hope to keep driving out Palestinians; the Palestinians who think this way hope for a shift in the wider balance of power.

Another driver is that neither side believes it can trust the other with a peace deal. Assassinations help those trying to prolong the conflict, and increase the mistrust on both sides.

However, compared to, say, shelling a UN facility or a school full of civilians, this is a relatively civilized action.