Year: 2010

  • Table 1

    Returning to this question of the political nature of the conflict (or non-conflict) between religion and science, in Thomas Dixon’s reply to Eric –

    I stand by my emphasis on the political aspects of all of this. Claims about the nature of reality and who has the authority to discover and describe it, and by what methods, are questions about power, and thus political. I don’t say that the Scopes or Galileo cases were nothing but politics, but I do say they were political.

    They were, but speaking broadly (as we are, because the subject is religion and science as such, not just particular incidents touching on religion and science), science is not inherently political in the way that religion is.

    Science is of course contingently political, and the politics in question can be very interesting and significant and worth researching. Science as an institution and as a career is often very political. But science itself, science as such – the methodology, the epistemology, the actual work – isn’t and can’t be.

    That’s not true of religion. Religion is inherently political in a way that science isn’t.

    That’s because science has to check itself against the way the world is, and religion doesn’t. Science is about what is there whether humans can figure it out or not, and religion isn’t. (It claims to be, but it isn’t.)

    Remember Carl Zimmer’s collection of scientists commenting on the NASA research? And Jerry Coyne’s post and the comments?

    Now imagine that happening with a religious…assertion.

    Nothing, right? The mind goes blank. There couldn’t be such a thing. There could be controversy and fuss, but it would all be just people disagreeing. It would be political. It wouldn’t be

    1) Figure S2 shows that the -As/+P cells have an As/C ratio of about 1.5 x 10-5, while +As/-P cells have an As/C ratio of about 3 x10-5. -As/+P cells have a P/C ratio of about 0.005, while +As/-P cells have a P/C ratio of about 0.002. These are not very big differences. Furthermore, these data suggest that the cells actually contain more P than As under both growth conditions. However, Table 1 shows that -As/+P cells contain 0.19% As and 0.02% P by dry weight. These data are not consistent with the data shown in Figure S2. (By the way, since the atomic weight of As is 2.4x that of P, the molar ratio is actually 4 rather than 10. But the data are still not consistent with Figure S2.)

    See? “Table 1 shows that -As/+P cells contain 0.19% As and 0.02% P by dry weight” isn’t political. Religious disagreements don’t have any “Table 1 shows that -As/+P cells contain 0.19% As and 0.02% P by dry weight.” Religion has a lot of time for politics because it spends no time on what Table 1 shows.

    So both are political in some sense, but science isn’t ultimately political. With so many scientists watching each other’s every move, sooner or later the politics is going to be shoved aside by what Table 1 shows.

  • Richard Holloway reviews Karen Armstrong

    “Is she correct in suggesting that, au fond, the essence of the main religions boils down to compassion?” No.

  • Five years ago today

    It’s the fifth anniversary of the Kitzmiller decision, so perhaps you would like to celebrate the day by re-reading the contemporaneous comments of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Paul Kurtz, Steve Jones, Matt Ridley, Barbara Forrest (an expert witness at the trial itself, of course), and Susan Haack.

    Enjoy.

  • Barbara Forrest offers a Kitzmas present

    It’s the anniversary of the Dover decision, so here is this year’s testimony from 15 citizens of Louisiana who spoke up for science, and won.

  • Bangladesh: woman dies after caning

    She was taken to a hospital with severe injuries a week after the beating, and died a month later.

  • This novel paradigm

    John C McLachlan, professor of medical education at Durham, points out that it’s a common ploy to make nasty things more attractive by dressing them up with new names, like for instance changing the name of “complementary and alternative medicine” to “integrative medicine.” (That seems like a tricky one – you gain the flattering implications of “integrative” but you lose the at least as flattering implications of “alternative.” Decisions decisions.)

    When there is tricksy wordplay going on, it may be time for another Sokal hoax. McLachlan sent a proposal to an International Conference on Integrative Medicine to be held in Jerusalem last October. It included this exciting observation:

    Recently, as a result of my developmental studies on human embryos, I have discovered a new version of reflexology, which identifies a homunculus represented in the human body, over the area of the buttocks. The homunculus is inverted, such that the head is represented in the inferior position, the left buttock corresponds to the right hand side of the body, and the lateral aspect is represented medially. As with reflexology, the “map” responds to needling, as in acupuncture, and to gentle suction, such as cupping.

    The organizers said ooh sounds exciting, send abstract; MacLachlan sent abstract; organizers said ooh lovely, you’re invited.

    In short, they bit. They took seriously a claim that there is a homunculus in each human buttock and that this is of therapeutic and diagnostic significance.

    It is good to know these things.

  • Ireland: two bishops have questions to answer

    Was it really an accident that documents concerning allegations of abuse against 10 priests were not passed to the Ferns inquiry?

  • Abortion worse than al-Qaeda, says dim Royal

    Nicholas Windsor calls abortion “the single most grievous moral deficit in contemporary life.”

  • Theism is mandatory in Indonesia

    Its constitution says that “the state shall be based upon belief in the one, supreme God.”

  • George Packer reviews George Bush’s memoir

    For Bush, making decisions is an identity question: Who am I?

  • Chuck is a spoilt baby

    I pretty much never link to the Daily Mail – but just this once…

    ‘We spend our lives here educating a new ­generation to understand that rational behaviour requires us to reach conclusions and make ­decisions by examining evidence.

    ‘Yet now we have the heir to the throne demanding — not in a ­throwaway remark, but in an entire book to which he has just put his name — that we should reject science and evidence in favour of following our instincts. This is surely disturbing.’

    Then a bit from that book shows how and why it’s disturbing:

    ‘Having considered these questions long and hard, my view is that our outlook in the Westernised world has become far too firmly framed by a mechanistic approach to science.’

    He continues: ‘This approach is entirely based upon the gathering of the results that come from subjecting physical phenomena to scientific experiment.’

    As opposed to just looking into one’s heart; yes, so it is, and so it should be.

    Some of his phrases are ­messianic: ‘I would be failing in my duty to future generations and to the Earth itself if I did not attempt to point this out and indicate possible ways we can heal the world.’

    Obsessively convinced of his own rightness, he views his ­critics with the weary ­resignation of an early Christian martyr: ‘It is probably ­inevitable that if you challenge the ­traditions of conventional thinking you will find yourself accused of naivety.’

    As if he knows “possible ways we can heal the world.”

    Charles insists upon addressing a range of issues wider and deeper than any ­mortal man — unless he has a mind of genius, as the Prince certainly does not — can sensibly encompass. Some of his book reads like the ravings of a Buddhist mystic.

    I once incurred princely wrath by suggesting to him that he would be judged by what he is rather than by what he does — that being heir to the throne is not a government office.

    …

    Rural grandees such as ­himself may have enjoyed times past, but peasants certainly did not.

    The industrial growth which he hates has brought huge benefits to mankind. He seems oblivious to the ­tension between his grand vision about how others should live and his personal financial profligacy; his enthusiasm for using helicopters and keeping every light blazing in Clarence House at all hours.

    He thinks he’s genuinely Special, as opposed to being just notionally Special by an accident of birth. It’s very silly of him to think that.

  • Michael Bérubé on the science wars redux

    Some scientific questions now seem to be a matter of tribal identity.

  • Charles is too dangerous to be king

    Immovably convinced of his own rightness, he views his ­critics with the weary resignation of an early Christian martyr.

  • A new Sokal hoax in “integrative medicine”

    John McLachlan sent an absurd proposal to an International Conference on Integrative Medicine. It was accepted…

  • Jesus and Mo on neurology and religion

    Or what Mo and Paul have in common.

  • Ricky Gervais on “Why don’t you believe in God?”

    “I get that question all the time. I always try to give a sensitive, reasoned answer. This is usually awkward, time consuming and pointless.”

  • “The truth” versus the truth

    I’m breaking it into pieces, because it’s a large subject. Thomas Dixon also said

     I stand by my emphasis on the political aspects of all of this. Claims about the nature of reality and who has the authority to discover and describe it, and by what methods, are questions about power, and thus political. I don’t say that the Scopes or Galileo cases were nothing but politics, but I do say they were political.

    That’s true, but incomplete. That’s where the postmodern turn does its turning: in treating that idea (despite the disclaimer) as if it were complete, or if not complete then of predominating interest.

    The claim itself is in fact political. It’s a useful claim; useful to people who want to make science a matter of power rather than one of inquiry and evidence, of politics rather than truth. Yes, of course, priests and scientists are in some sense competing for “power”; their rivalry is certainly political (though a good deal more political on the religious side than the scientific side, which is not surprising, since politics and power are all religions have); but science, at any rate, is fundamentally about something else, so making power central just does obfuscate the real issues.

    Power and politics are ultimately irrelevant, because whoever wins, whoever is stronger, the truth is what it is. Power can decide “the truth” but it can’t determine the truth.

  • Akpabio and the Child Witch Commission

    In what appears to be another move to combat the allegations of witchcraft and child abuse, the governor of Akwa Ibom state, Chief Godswill Akpabio, has inaugurated a six member Commission to inquire into witchcraft accusations and child rights abuses in the state. He charged them to recommend appropriate actions to be taken to protect children from being branded witches and wizards in order to guard against future occurence. The governor asked the Commission to determine the veracity of all the allegations of witchcraft against children and infliction of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment upon such children and to examine the role and culpability of all the allegations and abuses or practices and make recommendations.

    He then urged the people of Akwa Ibom to cooperate with the Commission in order to ‘obliterate this blot from the pages of our history’. The Commission is chaired by Justice Godwin Abraham and has Barrister Theresa Obot, Dr Okon Edet Akaiso, Dr Essien Edward Essien, Rt Rev John Koko-Bassey, Barrister Uduak Victor Ekwere as members. The Commission was given six weeks to submit it report. Anyone who has been following the ‘child witch saga’ in Akwa Ibom state would regard this as a welcome development. Surely it is, particularly when looked at on the surface. But taking a critical look at this development, one wonders why the state government decided to set up this Commission after passing into law the child rights act which prohibits witchcraft acusations and child abuse. If the government had yet to determine the veracity of the allegations of witchcraft against children and infliction of degrading treatment on them why did it sign into law the child rights bill with sections that prohibit child witch stigmatization. That there is already an existing law enacted by the state implies that the government is not in doubt as to the veracity of the claims of witchcraft accusations and child abuse. So what is the rationale behind setting up this body? Does it mean that the allegations of witchcraft and child abuse were not verified before the government enacted the child rights law? If there is one thing any intelligent observer of the situation in Akwa Ibom is expecting from the government, it is not to setting up a body to inquire into the allegations of witchcraft, but to facilitate the enforcement and implementation of the child rights law which was enacted in 2008. Since this law came into force two years ago, Akwa Ibom has not recorded any successful prosecution. Not even one offender has been convicted or punished under the child rights law in the state. And this has nothing to do with the veracity of the allegations of witchcraft but everything to do with the gaps in the political will, in the policing and justice system in Akwa Ibom state. And if this Commission could at the end of the day succeed in closing these gaps and ensure the full implementation of the child rights act, then the whole idea of setting it up would have been worthwhile.

    But that seems unlikely. Going by the pronouncement of the government of Akwa Ibom particularly its reactions to the international media coverage of the problem of witchraft accusations and child abuse, some people think the government might at the end of the day have some hidden agenda for setting up the Commission. In August, CNN broadcast a report on child witch stigmatization in Akwa Ibom state. It highlighted the role of churches in fueling the problem, and what governemental including the UN- agencies were doing to address this menace. That report  on CNN angered the government of Akwa Ibom state for reasons I have yet to understand. Because the government was given the opportunity by CNN to state its case and present its own side of the story but it wasted it. The CNN reporter interviewed the Commissioner of Information to know what the government was doing to tackle the problem of witchcraft accusations and child abuse but the Commissioner used the space to attack individuals and NGOs whom he accused of exaggerating the problem and using it to raise money for themselves. The governor, in his own reaction, was visibly upset.  He also blamed the NGOs for using the same images to generate international sympathy and funds. However he outlined the efforts his government had made to tackle the problem including enacting the child rights law, providing free education to all children from primary to secondary level and making some donations to stigmatized children in Eket. The governor admitted that, after two years of enacting the law, not a single offender had been successfully prosecuted. It was not long after this broadcast on CNN, which rattled the Akwa Ibom state government, that the governor inaugurated this Commission.

    The world is watching. And many are wondering what could be the real motive behind setting up this august body. It is only time that will tell what the actual mission of this Commission is.  I hope at the end of the day, this Commission would not be used to witch hunt individuals and groups particularly those whom the government accuses of using the witchcraft problem to dent the image of the state internationally.

    I hope the Commission will not be used to undermine the work of NGOs who are complimenting the efforts of the government in the fight against child witch stigmatization. The Commission should be used to recognize the selfless efforts and the humanitarian gestures of individuals and groups who have worked over the years under very dangerous circumstances to tackle this social scourge with little or no assistance from the government. The Commission should work to fill in the gaps in the response by the state to this embarrassing phenomena and facilitate the total eradication of child witch stigmatization in Akwa Ibom.

    About the Author

    Leo Igwe, IHEU Representative in West Africa, lives in Ibadan.

  • Metametameta discussion of science ‘n’ religion

    Meta times 3 because commenting on Thomas Dixon’s comments on Eric MacDonald’s review of Dixon’s book. Dixon says, in reply to Eric’s reply to him, that it is becoming clear how their approaches differ.

    I think the bottom line is that I’m not happy to generalise about ‘religion’ in the way that you want to, nor to treat all ‘religion’ as if it were at one, extreme end of the spectrum in terms of scriptural literalism and authoritarianism; nor to suppose that there is just one ‘paradigmatic’ singular relationship between religion and science.

    The trouble with that is, for some purposes it is necessary to generalize about religion in that way. Granted, religions differ, and the word can refer to different things – but when the subject under discussion is science and religion and whether there is or is not a conflict between them, then it becomes necessary to focus on the areas where there is conflict or potential for conflict. Otherwise the real issues are simply evaded, and what’s the point of that? Apart from a public relations exercise, that is.

    Believers and fans of religion like to do that, of course. There is no conflict between science and, say, liking to get together with people to sing churchy music once a week. Indeed not. But there is conflict with religion understood in other ways, and that’s what should be addressed, not the parts that pretty much everyone agrees are not in conflict. Religion-as-ritual is not the issue, so discussions of Science&Religion really aren’t about religion defined that way. The site of the conflict is epistemology, so that’s the place to discuss it.

  • Chapter 19 of Murphy report: main points

    “Walsh agreed to go to a psychiatrist and was ‘grateful that he had been given a second chance’.”