This compilation is provided by Living the Scientific Life.  This is definitely not any sort of ecumenical outreach program.  Here are the first seven slogans:

1. Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers
2. Honk If Your Religious Beliefs Make You An Asshole
3. Intelligent Design Makes My Monkey Cry
4. Too Stupid to Understand Science? Try Religion.
5. There’s A REASON Why Atheists Don’t Fly Planes Into Buildings
6. “Worship Me or I Will Torture You Forever. Have a Nice Day.”­ God.
7. God Doesn’t Kill People. People Who Believe in God Kill People.

Michael Lewis recounts his harrowing personal medical journey in Slate.  It was difficult for me to read this account without cringing. 

Then again (without getting too revealing), I know someone very close to me who had a vasectomy and it wasn’t as unnerving as the one Lewis describes.  Perhaps it was because, in the case I’m describing, the patient chose general anesthesia . . .

You know that life is out of balance.

If you are looking for a provocative film that allows you to feel this problem, I have a classic video to recommend.  I just saw it tonight for the first time: Koyaanisqatsi. The 1982 film was directed by Godfrey Reggio.  Ron Fricke provided the memorable cinematography and Philip Glass provided the haunting music.

In a documentary that accompanies the current version of the DVD, Reggio explains:

[T]hese films have never been about the effect of technology, of industry on people. It’s been that everyone: politics, education, things of the financial structure, the nation state structure, language, the culture, religion, all of that exists within the host of technology. So it’s not the effect of it’s that everything exists within [technology]. It’s not that we use technology, we live technology. Technology has become as ubiquitous as the air we breathe.

The title of the film comes from the Hopi language. At the end of the film, Reggio provided a multi-part definition based on the Hopi etymology: 

1. crazy life; 2. life in turmoil; 3. life out of balance; 4. life disintegrating; 5. a state of life that calls for a different way of living.

The new book is geared toward explaining evolution to the American public.   Here’s a pdf brochure describing the book.  The book can also be read online in its entirety here.

I read much of the chapter on Creationism.  It’s clearly written, with helpful illustrations.  This looks like a good place to send open-minded folks who are confused by Creationist claims.

Mike the Mad Biologist reports on a new report by the Guttmacher Institute.  He concludes: 

61% of women who have abortions already have children. So much for the ‘irresponsible slut’ propaganda.

Bush supporters, including some Republican presidential candidates, have been boasting lately that Bush’s troop surge in Iraq last year is “working.”  However, for several reasons, this claim is highly dubious.  First, there never were any clear goals stated for the surge, nor was any timetable ever given, so there actually is no objective way to tell if it is “working” or not.  Has it reduced violence as much as it should have or as quickly as it should have?  We’ll never know.

Second, and more significant, is the fact that military air strikes in Iraq increased by a factor of five from 2006 to 2007:  1447 bombs in ‘07 versus 229 bombs in ‘06.  Obviously, if America blows up enough “suspected insurgents” in Baghdad, it will (at least, in the short term) have a very chilling effect on insurgent violence.  What the military doesn’t tell us, of course, is how many innocent Iraqi civilians were blown up in the process — a fact that Bush supporters…and far too many other Americans…conveniently ignore.

Third, Iraqi leaders are probably seeing the handwriting on the wall:  American troop levels will almost certainly drop after Bush leaves office, so they’d better start getting their act together.  Of course, we don’t know if they really are working harder to quell the violence in their country, but I would bet that they are.

In sum, there are several reasons for discounting the assertion that Bush’s surge is “working.”  Nevertheless, there is one way in which we can all agree that it is working:  if the goal of the surge was to give political cover for Republicans running for elected office.  Before the surge, Bush’s “stay the course” strategy was an utter failure, yet it also seemed clear that killing enough Iraqis would eventually reduce insurgent attacks, so what better way to make it appear that Republicans had a clue what they were doing than by declaring a new strategy, bombing the crap out of Baghdad, and then (quickly, before violence returns to pre-surge levels) declaring that the new strategy was a “success?”  At least it gives Republican candidates better propaganda than they had a year ago.

Let’s just hope American voters don’t fall for it.

I have long been suspicious of chiropractors.  Why?  One reason is that the practice has a wobbly foundation.  In 1895, D.D.  Palmer declared that “95% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrate, the remainder by luck stations of other joints.”  His conclusion is that most diseases could be cured by adjusting vertebrae that interfere with nerve vibrations flowing from the brain through the vertebrae.  Recent studies have shown that while spinal manipulation can be helpful to treating some back pain, “there appears to be little evidence to support the value of spinal manipulation for non-musculoskeletal conditions.”  (Shekelle, P.G. “What role for chiropractic and healthcare?” New England Journal of Medicine 339:1074-1075.) 

Another reason for my skepticism regarding chiropractors is that I’ve heard too many tales of highly suspicious sounding chiropractors.  I’ve heard, for instance, about the “need” to be treated two to three times per week for years on end for nebulous sounding conditions.

I’ve never before been to a chiropractor. Five weeks ago I would’ve assure you that I would not likely ever go to a chiropractor.  That was before my pain got bad, however.  For the past five weeks, I’ve been suffering from a pain on the left side of my upper back.  It comes and goes during the day, ranging from a dull ache to a severe stabbing pain that makes it hard for me to concentrate anything else.  The pain sometimes borders on disabling.  Sometimes, lying down is the only thing that settles down the intense stabbing pain.  I’ve tried working out more, resting more and stretching more.  I’ve tried ibuprofen and, later, Naprosyn in various doses. 

I arranged for a massage last week, from a woman who has given me massages a few times over the past few years.  She exclaimed that I was holding my left shoulder much higher than my right and that she had never before seen such an extreme case. After working on my back for almost 2 hours, she gave me the business card of a chiropractor who did acupuncture.  The massage gave me some relief, but most of the pain returned a day later.  My medical doctor gave me a prescription to a double dose of Naprosyn (he diagnosed me over the phone).  I considered that if I pursued my problem with a medical doctor, he or she would probably refer me to physical therapy.  It occurred to me, however, that I’ve had two rounds of treatment from physical therapists in the past and that both of them were unimpressive due to the nonchalance of the therapists. 

It was time to do something about my problem, because I was losing valuable hours of productive time because of the pain in my back.  To make things worse, ibuprofen has been hard on the stomach, causing something bordering on nausea.  Therefore, I picked up the phone and I called the chiropractor/acupuncturist to set up a visit.

Two days ago (Monday), I visited the chiropractor/acupuncturist.  I felt it was worth a try given several discussions I’ve had with people who claimed that acupuncture brought substantial relief to them.  Further, this particular chiropractor is well known for treating quite a few professional athletes, including Olympic athletes and members of the St. Louis Rams and St. Louis Blues.

I was impressed with this chiropractor during my first visit.  He took a lot of time trying to determine what was causing the condition.  This is in direct contrast to my own experience (and the experiences of others) regarding medical doctors, who typically try to treat symptoms with drugs or cortisone, without taking a detailed history to determine the root cause.

Not that the root cause was hard to determine in my case. My chiropractor quickly determined that I was locked over a computer keyboard many hours every day.  And after I’m finished hovering over a keyboard at the office, locked like a statue, 10 or 12 hours per day at work, I do more of this hunching over a keyboard at home while writing for this blog.  He explained that this unvarying posture is hard on the body and that the sort of pain that I was experiencing was common among people who spend many hours sitting in front of a computer.  It was his theory that my pain emanated from my pelvis (even though my pelvis doesn’t hurt) which is fixed in a locked position on a chair hour after hour without relief.

He recommended two or three sessions of acupuncture a series of simple exercises that I could do at home or at the office.  Then he would be done with me.  His simple exercises don’t require any equipment and can be done in a couple of minutes every hour or so.  He also urged me to take periodic breaks from sitting in front of the computer.  I have been directed to stand up and do some simple stretches while at the computer (these one-minute breaks are to be taken every 15 minutes or so).  I have carefully complied with the chiropractor’s instructions ever since I received them two days ago.

What is modern acupuncture?  It’s quite different than traditional acupuncture in that it involves not only needles, but slight pulsing electrical current that is run through the affected tissue through the needles. The purpose of acupuncture is to relax the overwrought muscles and thereby reduce the pain.  My chiropractor readily admitted that the mechanism for pain relief is not well understood, though it often works. He made it clear that others have lots of detailed ancient hocus-pocus theories for why acupuncture works, but he doesn’t rely on those teachings (many acupuncturists still do, however). 

A modern acupuncture treatment lasts 15 to 20 minutes.  The acupuncture was not painful, although it was a just a bit uncomfortable.  It is done without any anesthesia.  After receiving the acupuncture treatment on Monday, I thought that I felt some good relief from the sharp pains I have been experiencing in my back.  At the same time, however, I was well aware of the placebo effect and I wanted to make sure that I was not simply psyching myself out.

I went back for a second acupuncture treatment today.  My wife (Anne) attended with me because she is interested in knowing more about acupuncture.  She brought a camera and took a couple of pictures so that I could show what acupuncture looks like.  This first picture shows the chiropractor inserting a needle into my back. 

He used a short straw looking sleeve, which he taps along with the needle, which distributes the sensation of the insertion so that it is not sharp or painful.  (more…)

A one-ton rodent has been discovered by scientists in Uruguay:

J. monesi’s skull, a whopping 53 centimetres long, was discovered in a broken boulder on the coast of Uruguay . . .  By comparing the skull’s dimensions to the body sizes of existing rodents, the researchers determined that its owner probably weighed about 1000 kilogrammes, making it the world’s largest known rodent.

This discovery is expanding my modest knowledge of large rodents.

I don’t often think about the sexual lives of gay people. I just don’t.  Whatever any two consenting adults do to pleasure themselves in private is none of my business.

Many political and religious conservatives differ from me in this regard.  Many conservatives are obsessed with thoughts that adult gay people are having consensual gay sex. Those conservatives pace their hallways at home and at the office fretting that gays are sexually satisfying each other in private. For proof, Google “God homosexual” and you’ll find more than one-half million web sites, almost all of them written by conservatives who argue that homosexuality is “unnatural” and that the Bible prohibits it.   

At this site, we’ve sometimes discussed this conservative obsession with gay sex.  What does Jesus say about homosexuality?  Nothing. With regard to the Old Testament, we’ve warned of the need to beware of the ubiquitous cherry picking of Bible literalists. See here and here and see Mark Tiedemann’s commentary on the conservative spin regarding homosexuality.

Here is some additional evidence to show how amazingly obsessed conservatives are regarding homosexuality.  This is truly amazing.  Check out Conservapedia, a Wiki geared to conservatives [thanks to The Carpet Bagger Report for this tip]  As indicated on the “Statistics” page of Conservapedia, the site contains almost 50,000 content pages covering a wide array of topics (all of them written from a notably conservative perspective). Now take a look at the following list of the top-rated pages in Conservapedia.  Most of them, however, concern the “problem” of homosexuality.    

1. Homosexuality‎ [2,279,810]
2. Main Page‎ [2,144,701]
3. Teen Homosexuality‎ [367,030]
4. Homosexual Agenda‎ [325,305]
5. Homosexuality and Anal Cancer‎ [296,770]
6. Arguments Against Homosexuality‎ [285,870]
7. Ex-homosexuals‎ [272,478]
8. Wikipedia‎ [270,085]
9. Homosexuality and Choice‎ [268,310]
10. Examples of Bias in Wikipedia‎ [254,327]

I assume that I’ve made my case that conservatives are obsessed with homosexuality (even though many conservatives engage in same-sex sex, whether or not they consider themselves to be “gay.”).  I think it’s obvious that these conservative obsessions are making lives miserable for many good-hearted law-abiding tax-paying homosexuals.  Many of those who detest homosexuality seem driven to make gays uncomfortable in order to change them or to “cure” them (Google “cure homosexual” and you’ll get another half-million web pages).

We’d all be better off if we got conservatives thinking about things other than gays.  (more…)

I glanced up through my city home office window at dusk, and saw a big bird in the tree.

Click to enlarge

So I grabbed my camera and took a few snapshots before she flew. I’m guessing at the gender. At the low light, the shot of her departure is too blurry to share. Am I wasting a post here rather than just putting this as a comment to my previous hawk spotting here?

Or am I just acting out because I have just gotten over the rhino virus that I picked up in Jury Duty on Jan 2, and have today (Quarterly Tax Day for us self-employees) received the Federal Court Jury questionnaire (indicating an imminent Federal Jury Summons)?

In which we, along with a disappointed viewer, are are schooled by a very smart cat regarding symbols, meaning, and discourse.

If you are not familiar with The Pinky Show, check them out. Though simple, compelling. I always gain at least one new way to look at things.

If there is one thing to be sure of, it is that we all need some gentle poking at our brains.

I just found another interesting article at the U.N. Observer. It reports on the recent dismissal of a suit for damages filed by prisoners being held at Guantanamo:

In a 43-page opinion, Circuit Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a statute that applies by its terms to all “persons” did not apply to detainees at Guantánamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law. The Court also dismissed the detainees’ claims under the Alien Tort Statute and the Geneva Conventions, finding defendants immune on the basis that “torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military’s detention of suspected enemy combatants.” Finally, the Court found that, even if torture and religious abuse were illegal, defendants were immune under the Constitution because they could not have reasonably known that detainees at Guantánamo had any constitutional rights.

Oh, and did you hear about January 12 mass arrest (80 people) at the United States Supreme Court? I didn’t either. Maybe the corporate media was too busy covering Britney Spears.

Here is an article from the U.N. Observer that asks some good questions and provides some troubling statistics.

In Steven Pinker’s article, published in the NYT Magazine, you’ll learn of many of the new developments in the scientific study of morality, many of these new findings unearthed by neuroscientists.  The study of morality has come a long way in the past ten years.  It’s no longer an exercise in near-futility led by academic philosophers rehashing Kant’s categorical imperative for the umpteenth time.  The cognitive scientists, many of them relative newcomers on the scene, have given us a lot more to talk about. 

Steven Pinker has written a terrific review of these recent developments in his article, covering much ground in a comprehensive, though quite readable, article.  Here are a few of the sub-topics:

What are the sources of morality?

Morality, then, is still something larger than our inherited moral sense, and the new science of the moral sense does not make moral reasoning and conviction obsolete. At the same time, its implications for our moral universe are profound.

Pinker warns us not to be so quick on the trigger when we accuse others of being immoral:

At the very least, the science tells us that even when our adversaries’ agenda is most baffling, they may not be amoral psychopaths but in the throes of a moral mind-set that appears to them to be every bit as mandatory and universal as ours does to us.

What is the core element of a moral belief?  Empathy.

The other external support for morality is a feature of rationality itself: that it cannot depend on the egocentric vantage point of the reasoner. If I appeal to you to do anything that affects me — to get off my foot, or tell me the time or not run me over with your car — then I can’t do it in a way that privileges my interests over yours (say, retaining my right to run you over with my car) if I want you to take me seriously. Unless I am Galactic Overlord, I have to state my case in a way that would force me to treat you in kind. I can’t act as if my interests are special just because I’m me and you’re not, any more than I can persuade you that the spot I am standing on is a special place in the universe just because I happen to be standing on it.

Not coincidentally, the core of this idea — the interchangeability of perspectives — keeps reappearing in history’s best-thought-through moral philosophies, including the Golden Rule (itself discovered many times); Spinoza’s Viewpoint of Eternity; the Social Contract of Hobbes, Rousseau and Locke; Kant’s Categorical Imperative; and Rawls’s Veil of Ignorance. It also underlies Peter Singer’s theory of the Expanding Circle — the optimistic proposal that our moral sense, though shaped by evolution to overvalue self, kin and clan, can propel us on a path of moral progress, as our reasoning forces us to generalize it to larger and larger circles of sentient beings.

This collection is a bit too painful to read at length, actually. 

If you ever doubt that fundamentalism is destructive to a healthy intellect, visit this collection and read a few entries. If you want to see the original entries, the links are waiting for you. 

And in case anyone is concerned that I’m claiming that these comments are representative of all Christians, I am not.

The verbal harassment by Filipino Monkey is enough to get George Bush ready to go to war against Iran, while the U.S. economy smolders back home.

This set of stark and sometimes unnerving photos was recently published by Wired. The photograper is Taryn Simon, whose work is displayed by Gagosian Gallery.

Tragedy struck our family suddenly, as it sometimes does, with no real warning signs or portents. One moment, contentment, a morning ritual of oatmeal and coffee, conversation about daily plans, and then a new moment - horror, blood, panic, and my oatmeal bowl in mid-air, suspended. That instant, so short so brutal, shattered us. Driving, driving to the animal emergency clinic - is this too fast? This is too slow - get in that lane - stave off panic, full of dread and fear, breathe in, breathe out dare to hope. So sorry, so sorry, no words to capture the sorrow.

The history - years of love and effort and training with a much loved but unpredictable dog with and for whom we worked so hard (not hard enough?), and a greatly treasured older cat who ruled our home like a feisty queen, and from whom the dog always backed down, isn’t the point here. But that history was the the fabric of our home, our life. Much effort, so much love and constant awareness. Years and years of vigilance, training and exercise wasn’t enough, and now we lose two beloved beings in one short time. We live with that, we grieve, we work to move beyond remorse and guilt.

During one of the many trips to the hospital, (so many, an eternity in a few days) I think - this is why we need a heaven. This yearning to know that loss isn’t how we end, that there is some goodness waiting to counter this searing pain. That hope would help with my sorrow, with my anger, with my guilt and regret. To know that my beings will live again, free of pain, happy. To be sure that the damage led to perfection. My yearning tastes of tears, so sorry, no words.

I don’t think the biggest difference between people is a belief in God or not. I know too many people who seek God who are also full of compassion, kindness and a desire to help themselves and others. I know too many atheists who are strident and arrogant, and I also can say the opposite. For me the two are different languages that ask the same question - how do we live with compassion and openness. What gives us meaning in the midst of suffering, what helps us to grow? Both stances can do that, and sometimes neither - thus the question of which is better is flawed.

During all this pain (because of it?) I thought a lot about the discussion on this site regarding friendship between god people and non-god people. What I seek in friendship and connection is simply connection and a desire for compassion and understanding. I expect an ability to build a bridge between difference, regardless of the material. When a person is so attached to a belief that it becomes a bludgeon and a barrier to understanding, the belief itself causes a problem, but isn’t the problem. Attachment is the problem, as it so often is. We cling to things that comfort us in the face of the unknown, or in the midst of pain. That clinging is human, but it can hold us back from becoming, from learning, from peace. When we think we already have truth in our back pocket we can’t learn any more, and then we are limited. We can be so attached to what we know we may miss the truth before us.

My yearning for an afterlife where my beloved beings are happy and beyond the pain comes from such an attachment. I grieve for myself, for my loss, for my regret as much as I grieve for their suffering and dying. Eventually I must let go of my guilt and anger, and sorrow - they steal my present, and tarnish my memories. They take my joy, and there was so much shared. We had good lives together, and now, even after they are gone, they are helping me understand. For that I am grateful.

That’s the conclusion of this article in The Economist.  The recording industry is going through wrenching changes, many of them well-deserved.

“‘Comes with Music’ is a recognition that music has to be given away for free, or close to free, on the internet,” says Mr Mulligan. Paid-for download services will continue and ad-supported music will become more widespread, but subsidised services where people do not pay directly for music will become by far the most popular, he says. For the recorded-music industry this is a leap into the unknown.

You’ll see the clear answer in this colorful graph.

“Security,” by Alen Lauzan Falcon, Caglecartoons.com

Debate
Angel Boligan, Cagle Cartoons, El Universal, Mexico City

Tobacco Addiction
Nerilicon, CagleCartoons.com, Mexico City

Flirting with Recession
John Darkow, Columbia Daily Tribune, Missouri

[admin note:  DI proudly supports cartoonists through its subscription to Cagle Cartoons.  Each of these cartoons is printed with full permission]

I really do enjoy these displays of gadgetry. Quite clever. I just wish I could read the little notes at the end of each episode–I assume I’m missing a good joke.

Can those who believe in God be good friends with those who don’t believe in God?

A fellow named Martin raised this intriguing point about a week ago here.  He suggested that a person who doesn’t believe in God cannot possibly have a real friendship, a deep friendship, with someone who claims to believe in God.  As I understood Martin’s point it’s absurd to claim a belief in God; it’s so incredibly absurd that a nonbeliever cannot ever fully trust a believer. In Martin’s view, in order to be true friends, believers need to quit saying those absurd claims about miracles and invisible Beings.  And those believers need to stop claiming that they know things that they don’t know.   According to Martin, it’s simply not worth it to try to maintain a friendship with people who claim to believe in gods and angels.  The craziness exhibited by believers (regardless of all of their other redeeming social values) is a huge roadblock even the possibility of friendship.

I think I understand Martin’s concern.  I’m a people who has a smaller number of deeper friendships compared to many other people.  I’ve been told that I’m discriminating in my friendships and that’s likely true.  I readily admit that I make myself less available to people with whom I have less in common.  I admit further that I have often written off the possibility of friendship with some people based upon various beliefs they hold, despite the fact that such people are, in many ways, honorable and decent human beings. 

Sometimes, strong beliefs of people are just just too much for me–they overwhelm the relationship.  I’ve felt this way about most fundamentalists and most Neocons, for example.  I’ve called off a few friendships when the friend started adopting Neocon beliefs uncritically.

Are mild religious beliefs totally inert–self-contained in the psyche?  No. I assume that troublesome belief-systems (troublesome to me), though they might lie hidden, latent and relatively unexamined, are likely to permeate that person’s thinking in many subtle (and not-so-subtle) ways.  Thus, I too have had thoughts like those Martin expressed in his comments.  In some cases I have concluded that any friendship I might have with some people with troublesome beliefs (troublesome to me) might be a pretend friendship, not a real one. I have such thoughts accompanied by the thought that there’s many fish in the sea.  Why in the world would I want to work so hard to maintain a friendship with Neocons when I could have a much easier and more satisfying friendship with someone without all that Neocon baggage?

I part ways with Martin in an important respect.  In response to Martin’s comments here, I tried to draw the distinction between fundamentalists and religious moderates.  Although I have very few deep friendships with fundamentalists, I have numerous good friendships with religious moderates.  For most religious moderates, their belief in God is often compartmentalized–it seems to take them over for about one hour per week (on Sunday morning) and then it’s all over, except for occasional ritualistic prayers over meals. They don’t believe that the Bible is mostly literal truth. Most of them don’t regularly read the Bible.   They (as Daniel Dennett argued) believe in belief, rather in the things they utter–they think they’re supposed to believe in the things they say at church.  But they don’t actually consider those things carefully, certainly not as closely as they consider how to invest their money in the stock market or as closely as they ponder the pro’s and con’s of their favorite sports team.  Many of them (and many clergy who lead them) are closet agnostics.  Away from their churches, one-on-one, I constantly hear them admitting that they don’t actually know those things they proclaim in church.  In fact, most of them readily admit (again, away from their respective churches) that they disbelieve many of the things they proclaim in church. (more…)

I stumbled onto this excellent column by Damian Thompson about the modern proliferation of pseudo-information. That is, the way various formerly obscure conspiracy cults (UFO’s, moon landing hoaxers, second-shooters, 9/11 Truthers, Flat Earthers, Young Earthers, Inflating Earthers, etc) manage to disseminate their beliefs convincingly to wide and gullible audiences.

Before Gutenberg, only reliable, church-approved texts could be widely read in western culture. Then a new technology came along, and suddenly heretics like Martin Luther or Galileo could publish widely before the church could disappear them and their ideas. It took a few generations to settle down to the publishing and  editorial ethic that made it clear which information was reliable and accepted, and which was fringe. It helped that there was still some economic hurdle to wide publication, and publishers needed to maintain their reputations. This lasted until almost the end of the 20^th century.

Now, we have the web. Any misinformed but layout-talented individual can produce publications (pages) that look as wise, vetted, and reliable as Britannica. But without the necessity of prissy little details like fact checking or actual expertise in the subjects being purveyed. Must it be another couple of generations before the average browser can tell fact from fancy?

(more…)

Here’s a video I found that I want to share with you. Its message is strong and, technically speaking, well delivered.