I've talked about graph theory here before in the context of Ramsey theory.
However, there are many other interesting graph theory problems.
A graph is said to be planar if one can draw it on a plane with none of the edges intersecting. So for example, K3, the graph formed by three vertices all of which connect to each other is planar, but the similar graph K5 formed by five vertices all of which connect is not planar.
We can also change our notion of graph by allowing our edges to have directions, and represent them with arrows rather than straight lines. Thus for example, if one wanted to use a graph to represent who knows the name of whom with a bunch of people, using a directed graph would be quite natural.
Over the last few days I have been thinking about divisibility graphs of sets. These graphs arise when one takes some set of positive integers and assigns each to a vertex then draws the corresponding arrows when one integer divides another. (So for example, if our set was was {1,2,4} then 1 would have arrows going to 2 and 4 and 2 would have an arrow going to 4). For convenience, I am ignoring the arrows that vertices would have going to themselves.
Now, assume one has a set of positive integers A and we know that corresponding divisibility graph is planar. What can we say about how large the set is. That is, if we let A(x) be the number of elements in A which are at most x, how fast does A(x) grow? It is not difficult to see that one can get A(x) to grow at least about as fast as x/log x. One does this by taking A to be the set of prime numbers. The resulting graph is certainly planar since it has no edges at all. Then the prime number theorem does the rest. With a small amount of tweaking, one can get this to grow at about 2x/log x since one can include all the numbers of the form 2p and still get a planar graph. I suspect that the actual best possible growth is on the order of x/log x but I'm not sure. One possible approach to making a large planar divisibility graph is to use the greedy algorithm. That is, throw 1 into the set and then go by induction on each integer, throwing in the next integer if it still allows a planar graph. If one call this set G, then the first number not in G is 18. It seems at first that G grows quickly, and G includes every prime number. But most large integers are in fact not in G, a result of the fact that most large integers have a lot of prime factors. For example, every multiple of 6 other than 6 and 12 is not in G.
Now, you may be thinking, "Josh, this is an interesting math problem, but the title mentioned the Bible. What does that have to do with anything?" The truth is that the connection is tenuous. The problem about planar divisibility graphs occurred to me when I was tutoring a professor's young kid in graph theory, and we discussed divisibility graphs. The professor's family is Orthodox, and so another graph we talked was to take different Biblical figures and make a graph representing who had met whom. The major graph had three large components, one corresponding to the patriarchal time period (with Abraham, Issac and Jacob as the most connected points), one to the time around the Exodus (with Moses at the center), and one at the early monarchy, with David, Samuel and Solomon as the main points. However, an issue came up. My young student wanted to add Eli, the high priest during most of the of Samuel to the graph. This raised an issue which neither he nor I knew the answer: Did Eli ever encounter David? The text does not mention such an event, but the chronology seems tentatively to allow such a meeting. I'm also unaware of any midrashim claiming that they met. I'm mentioning this here therefore for two reasons: One can any more knowledgeable readers point me to anything in the text itself which deals with this, or can any of my more midrashically inclined readers point me to any midrashim that address whether they met?
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Monday, June 20, 2011
Monday, June 6, 2011
Dungeons, Dragons and Halacha
In an earlier entry I discussed whether under halachah (Orthodox Jewish law) it would be acceptable to make a horcrux or become a lich if either were possible in real life. That entry was largely an excuse for bad wordplay related to the word "phylactery" which has a variety of meanings. A phylactery is in the most general sense an object which contains someting of religious or ritual significance. In the most common context, the word is used in the plural- "phylacteries" as an English translation of tefilin, the small boxes worn by some Jews at morning prayers. Another use of term is in Dungeons and Dragons, where the term is used to describe the object that a lich, a type of undead wizard, uses to store their soul.
However, I recently came across yet another meaning of this term in a Dungeons and Dragons context. There is a spell, described in the D&D book "Player's Guide to Faerun" called "Spell Phylactery" which allows one to store a spell on a scroll which "must be bound to your arm or forehead (usually rolled tightly or placed in a small box for this purpose)". This form seems more directly inspired by the phylacteries of the Jewish tradition. Unfortunately, even if D&D magic were real, it would not be halachically acceptable to make a three-way phylactery since the Spell Phylactery spell can only be cast by a worshipper of the goddess Mystra, which would be not allowed under halacha. Too bad. I really wanted phylacteries that functioned as both a phylactery and as a spell phylactery.
However, I recently came across yet another meaning of this term in a Dungeons and Dragons context. There is a spell, described in the D&D book "Player's Guide to Faerun" called "Spell Phylactery" which allows one to store a spell on a scroll which "must be bound to your arm or forehead (usually rolled tightly or placed in a small box for this purpose)". This form seems more directly inspired by the phylacteries of the Jewish tradition. Unfortunately, even if D&D magic were real, it would not be halachically acceptable to make a three-way phylactery since the Spell Phylactery spell can only be cast by a worshipper of the goddess Mystra, which would be not allowed under halacha. Too bad. I really wanted phylacteries that functioned as both a phylactery and as a spell phylactery.
Friday, May 20, 2011
A brief note on the Rapture
Michael Hartell of the Sentinel and Enterprise interviewed me in my capacity as a spokesentity for the Boston Skeptics talking about the Rapture. Hartell's article focuses on Harold Camping's prediction that the Rapture will take place tomorrow. His article is worth reading, although there are a few things that didn't get into the final article that I think are worth mentioning: First, the entire "Rapture" doctrine as it exists in modern times is only a few centuries old and only became at all popular due to the preaching of John Darby in the early part of the 19th century. Second, this is a good example of the sort of serious damage that erroneous beliefs can create. The New York Times article on the same subject focuses on the Haddad family where the parents believe the Rapture will occur tomorrow and the children do not. In that article, the Haddads have stopped saving up for college for their children because they believe that it will never happen. The children will suffer when the Rapture doesn't take place and they then can't afford to get good educations. These parents are not going to risk their childrens' lives in the same way that parents who refuse to vaccinate are actively endangering their lives, but the basic problem is the same: hideously inaccurate beliefs about reality are hurting bystanders.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Osama bin Laden's death, Barack Obama, and the Judeo-Christian heritage of the United States: A response to my brother
In the last 24 hours, everyone has been talking about Osama bin Laden's death. Last night, after the President's speech, people around the country celebrated. Here in Boston, this apparently became another excuse for college students to get drunk. I heard well into the night screams of "USA! USA!" and at one point an attempt to sing "America, Fuck Yeah!" from Team America.
There were more measured responses including a piece in the Huffington Post by my brother Nathaniel. Unfortunately, many of the more measured responses, including this one, are misguided.
Nathaniel listed five aspects of the President's remarks which in his view stood out:
I don't have any significant problems with the second or fifth points, but the other three are problematic.
In his first point, Nathaniel portrays as a positive that which isn't. He also confuses a variety of different issues. Targeting high ranking terrorists and killing them is distinct from whether or not people such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed should get civilian trials once they are in our custody. But we can direct our military against targets at the same time that we use civllian trials for those who are captured. The first World Trade Center bombers and the Oklahoma City bombers were both tried successfully in civil courts. Being at war does not mean we need to ignore due process.
Nathaniel's third point is deeply wrong. The Judeo-Christian heritage of this country is deeply exaggerated. The US Constitution bears almost no signs of Judeo-Christian values. There are only three signs of such religious influence in the Constitution, and all are comparatively minor. First, laws presented to the President become law in 10 days after presentation to the President, excepting Sundays. Second, the treason clause requires two witnesses of an overt act to convict or a confession in court. This requirement echos the Old Testament rule for conviction of severe crimes which requires testimony of two witnesses. Third, the Constitution is dated "in the year of our Lord," a conventional phrase at the time.
Moreover, Nathaniel's statement portrays the Judeo-Christian heritage in the worst light possible. I'm proud of my Jewish heritage. But there's something deeply wrong when that heritage's primary lesson is an endorsement of retributive justice. It is noteworthy that the most substantial impact of the Bible on the text of the Constitution is to make conviction and punishment more difficult, not to endorse retribution. Indeed, it is a common theme in that heritage that we understand that even our enemies are people who can suffer. At the Passover Seder, even as the deliverance of the Israelites is celebrated, we remove a drop of wine from the cup for each of the Ten Plagues, remembering the Egyptian suffering.
Most troubling of all is the notion that mentioning God constitutes a " welcome shift from the president who went out of his way to give a nod to "non-believers" in his inaugural address." Approximately 10% of the people in United States self-identify as having no religion, and about 2% of the U.S. population identifies as either atheist or agnostic. Non-believers in the US have ranged from Carl Sagan to George Clooney, from Neil deGrasse Tyson to Bill Gates. Non-believers are an important part of the United States, intertwined with everything that makes America a great nation. All citizens deserve the same respect, whether they are differ by skin color, politics, or religious beliefs.
Nathaniel's fourth point is also misguided. The building of the transcontinental railroad was a triumph of the American spirit. And yes, America is really in a decline when our example of "we can do everything" is to kill our enemies. We are the only nation that has ever sent people to the moon. Yet, no one has walked on the moon in forty years. The shuttle will soon no longer be operational, and the US will need to rely on Russia for space flight. We are in a decline. No speech can hide that. And pretending otherwise is not a good thing. We must fight that decline. But we cannot fight it if we do not acknowledge the threat.
Nathaniel ended his piece by saying that he was proud of the troops and proud of the President. I can understand being proud of the troops. They risked their lives. We should be thankful to those soldiers who put their lives on the line to protect what we hold dear. This is not a good reason to be proud of the Ppresident. Nothing he did substantially impacted this result. It is possible that actual policy changes by Obama somehow lead to these events by making it easier to track down Osama. But I've seen no indication of that. Let's not give him credit that he isn't due. It is likely that in the 2012 election I will vote to reelect Obama, but that has almost nothing to do with these events, and it shouldn't. Instead of responding to these recent events, we should all vote for whichever candidate we think will be the most competent President with the policies that are best.
There were more measured responses including a piece in the Huffington Post by my brother Nathaniel. Unfortunately, many of the more measured responses, including this one, are misguided.
Nathaniel listed five aspects of the President's remarks which in his view stood out:
1) Obama emphasized that America and al Qaeda are "at war." This is an important shift from the president who wanted to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in a civilian court in New York, and who vowed to shut down Gitmo during the 2008 campaign. The tone here tonight was clear: The terrorists who plot against the United States are (illegal) combatants who deserve the full front of our military fury, not our legal rights.
2) The president gave a nod to his predecessor, in an acknowledgment that America has never been, nor ever will be, at war with Islam. This took class and grace, and Obama merits credit for it.
3) This speech was traditional. From the inclusion of "under God" in his closing remarks, to the references to retributive "justice," Obama channeled the Judeo-Christian values that still define our nation -- again, a welcome shift from the president who went out of his way to give a nod to "non-believers" in his inaugural address.
4) Somehow, Obama managed to take this moment to combat feelings of American declinism. The memo: We can do anything we set out to do. Compare this simple yet effective message to his recent flop of a State of the Union speech, in which the example of our greatness was the fact that "America is the nation that built the transcontinental railroad." This moment disproves those who sing the song of the "fall of American Empire," resolve, and spirit.
5) Most importantly, Obama tonight reaffirmed America's role as a force for good in the world, a force that extends beyond our borders. After U.S. troops took a backseat in NATO operations against Muammar Gaddafi, many (including me) worried that our will to "oppose any foe" in the defense of liberty played second fiddle to the whims of the UN, EU, and the Arab League. Thankfully and surprisingly, Obama reaffirmed our commitment to be a "shining beacon on a hill" to light the world.
I don't have any significant problems with the second or fifth points, but the other three are problematic.
In his first point, Nathaniel portrays as a positive that which isn't. He also confuses a variety of different issues. Targeting high ranking terrorists and killing them is distinct from whether or not people such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed should get civilian trials once they are in our custody. But we can direct our military against targets at the same time that we use civllian trials for those who are captured. The first World Trade Center bombers and the Oklahoma City bombers were both tried successfully in civil courts. Being at war does not mean we need to ignore due process.
Nathaniel's third point is deeply wrong. The Judeo-Christian heritage of this country is deeply exaggerated. The US Constitution bears almost no signs of Judeo-Christian values. There are only three signs of such religious influence in the Constitution, and all are comparatively minor. First, laws presented to the President become law in 10 days after presentation to the President, excepting Sundays. Second, the treason clause requires two witnesses of an overt act to convict or a confession in court. This requirement echos the Old Testament rule for conviction of severe crimes which requires testimony of two witnesses. Third, the Constitution is dated "in the year of our Lord," a conventional phrase at the time.
Moreover, Nathaniel's statement portrays the Judeo-Christian heritage in the worst light possible. I'm proud of my Jewish heritage. But there's something deeply wrong when that heritage's primary lesson is an endorsement of retributive justice. It is noteworthy that the most substantial impact of the Bible on the text of the Constitution is to make conviction and punishment more difficult, not to endorse retribution. Indeed, it is a common theme in that heritage that we understand that even our enemies are people who can suffer. At the Passover Seder, even as the deliverance of the Israelites is celebrated, we remove a drop of wine from the cup for each of the Ten Plagues, remembering the Egyptian suffering.
Most troubling of all is the notion that mentioning God constitutes a " welcome shift from the president who went out of his way to give a nod to "non-believers" in his inaugural address." Approximately 10% of the people in United States self-identify as having no religion, and about 2% of the U.S. population identifies as either atheist or agnostic. Non-believers in the US have ranged from Carl Sagan to George Clooney, from Neil deGrasse Tyson to Bill Gates. Non-believers are an important part of the United States, intertwined with everything that makes America a great nation. All citizens deserve the same respect, whether they are differ by skin color, politics, or religious beliefs.
Nathaniel's fourth point is also misguided. The building of the transcontinental railroad was a triumph of the American spirit. And yes, America is really in a decline when our example of "we can do everything" is to kill our enemies. We are the only nation that has ever sent people to the moon. Yet, no one has walked on the moon in forty years. The shuttle will soon no longer be operational, and the US will need to rely on Russia for space flight. We are in a decline. No speech can hide that. And pretending otherwise is not a good thing. We must fight that decline. But we cannot fight it if we do not acknowledge the threat.
Nathaniel ended his piece by saying that he was proud of the troops and proud of the President. I can understand being proud of the troops. They risked their lives. We should be thankful to those soldiers who put their lives on the line to protect what we hold dear. This is not a good reason to be proud of the Ppresident. Nothing he did substantially impacted this result. It is possible that actual policy changes by Obama somehow lead to these events by making it easier to track down Osama. But I've seen no indication of that. Let's not give him credit that he isn't due. It is likely that in the 2012 election I will vote to reelect Obama, but that has almost nothing to do with these events, and it shouldn't. Instead of responding to these recent events, we should all vote for whichever candidate we think will be the most competent President with the policies that are best.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Illinois and the Death Penalty
Governor Pat Quinn of Illinois just signed a law which abolishes the death penalty in that state. This legislation is to some extent symbolic, in that Illinois has had a moratorium on the death penalty for almost a decade. With this legislation, Illinois joins New Mexico and New Jersey as states that have recently abolished the death penalty.
I have discussed here before my attitude towards the death penalty, especially in regards to specific cases such as the ongoing case of Hank Skinner . I'm not intrinsically against the death penalty: societies have the right in general to execute those who have violated the social contract in particularly heinous fashions if that will assist the public good. However, the death penalty as practiced in the United States is capricious and disorderly. Prosecutors push for death sentences when it is politically convenient, and their are huge racial disparities in who is executed.
It is also clear that innocent people have been wrongly convicted, and that in at least some cases, innocent people have been executed such as Cameron Todd Willinngham. Evidentiary standards that allow junk science and superficially persuasive eyewitness testimony are leaving blood on all our hands. For a long time, I have found striking a certain section in the Biblical book of my namesake, Joshua. the Israelites are called thieves when one man steals at Jericho. How much worse are we as a society that we as a democracy repeatedly elect and reelect officials who kill innocent people in our name?
In the particular case of the state of Illinois, I have additional personal reason to be interested in this legislation. My uncle Seymour Simon was a justice on the Illinois Supreme Court. He was a staunch opponent of the death penalty and argued forcefully and unceasingly that the death penalty as implemented in Illinois was unconsciousable and unconstitutionally capricious. He died in 2006, and so did not live to see this legislation. I suspect I know how he would have responded if he had seen this: Illinois is down. Only thirty-five more states to go.
I have discussed here before my attitude towards the death penalty, especially in regards to specific cases such as the ongoing case of Hank Skinner . I'm not intrinsically against the death penalty: societies have the right in general to execute those who have violated the social contract in particularly heinous fashions if that will assist the public good. However, the death penalty as practiced in the United States is capricious and disorderly. Prosecutors push for death sentences when it is politically convenient, and their are huge racial disparities in who is executed.
It is also clear that innocent people have been wrongly convicted, and that in at least some cases, innocent people have been executed such as Cameron Todd Willinngham. Evidentiary standards that allow junk science and superficially persuasive eyewitness testimony are leaving blood on all our hands. For a long time, I have found striking a certain section in the Biblical book of my namesake, Joshua. the Israelites are called thieves when one man steals at Jericho. How much worse are we as a society that we as a democracy repeatedly elect and reelect officials who kill innocent people in our name?
In the particular case of the state of Illinois, I have additional personal reason to be interested in this legislation. My uncle Seymour Simon was a justice on the Illinois Supreme Court. He was a staunch opponent of the death penalty and argued forcefully and unceasingly that the death penalty as implemented in Illinois was unconsciousable and unconstitutionally capricious. He died in 2006, and so did not live to see this legislation. I suspect I know how he would have responded if he had seen this: Illinois is down. Only thirty-five more states to go.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
New Haven Schools (again), The Death Penalty, and Gratuitous Promotion of Family Members
Two quick notes:
Nathaniel has another piece criticizing the New Haven Promise program. This piece says much of what he has already said but includes a few more direct proposals about what else should be done. Unfortunately, this piece is on National Review Online. While that's an impressive accomplishment, that does make me feel conflicted about linking to it. In general, while NRO does have some worthwhile material, a disturbingly large fraction of it has over the last few years come to resemble a nutshell of what is wrong with the modern conservative movement in the US. For example, considering that NRO is the same place where writer Mike Potemra complained that Star Trek promoted "peace, tolerance, due process, progress" which are much too liberal values. Aside from this issue, as I've discussed before, I think that the problems in the public schools, including New Haven, are more complicated than Nathaniel portrays them.
There is a piece by another member of my family that I can link to with fewer reservations. My father has a deeply personal piece up at the Oxford University Press blog discussing why he has grown to oppose the death penalty. I suspect that his changing views are similar to the general decline in support for the death penalty over the last 20 years. The general support for the death penalty has dropped over time although about two thirds of the US still supports the death penalty (I've seen claims that the US did not have strong support for the death penalty in the 1960s and that the level of support grew for some time before beginning its current downwards trend, but I've never seen data backing this claim up.) There's also evidence that more religious people tend to be more likely to support the death penalty. If that is a causal rather than correlative link, the current drop in support for the death penalty may be due to the general drop in popularity of organized religion over the last few years.
Nathaniel has another piece criticizing the New Haven Promise program. This piece says much of what he has already said but includes a few more direct proposals about what else should be done. Unfortunately, this piece is on National Review Online. While that's an impressive accomplishment, that does make me feel conflicted about linking to it. In general, while NRO does have some worthwhile material, a disturbingly large fraction of it has over the last few years come to resemble a nutshell of what is wrong with the modern conservative movement in the US. For example, considering that NRO is the same place where writer Mike Potemra complained that Star Trek promoted "peace, tolerance, due process, progress" which are much too liberal values. Aside from this issue, as I've discussed before, I think that the problems in the public schools, including New Haven, are more complicated than Nathaniel portrays them.
There is a piece by another member of my family that I can link to with fewer reservations. My father has a deeply personal piece up at the Oxford University Press blog discussing why he has grown to oppose the death penalty. I suspect that his changing views are similar to the general decline in support for the death penalty over the last 20 years. The general support for the death penalty has dropped over time although about two thirds of the US still supports the death penalty (I've seen claims that the US did not have strong support for the death penalty in the 1960s and that the level of support grew for some time before beginning its current downwards trend, but I've never seen data backing this claim up.) There's also evidence that more religious people tend to be more likely to support the death penalty. If that is a causal rather than correlative link, the current drop in support for the death penalty may be due to the general drop in popularity of organized religion over the last few years.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Jack Chick and Civil Rights
There's a new Jack Chick tract up. This tract is entitled "Stinky" and is about an eponymous demon assigned to go up to the surface for Halloween. Stinky is supposed to find a gift for Satan so that a higher a ranking demon, #3, hopes to use to get a higher position in the diabolical hierarchy. Unfortunately, school has just resumed, so I don't have the time to go discuss the tract in detail. And honestly, as Chick tracts go, it is pretty mediocre. We don't even have the grand Catholic conspiracy appearing in this one. The plot-line is slightly less coherent than usual which also may lend to the mediocrity.
However, just when I thought that Jack Chick might be losing his did stand out. At one point, Stinky is trying to get past an angel so he can continue to tempt some humans. Stinky cries out "I demand my Civil Rights!" to which the angel responds "That doesn't work here, Stinky!" (eccentric formatting as in in the original). As far as I can tell, Jack Chick is attempting to make some sort of political argument here along the lines of "civil rights are a demonic concept." I don't know what to say to that.
However, just when I thought that Jack Chick might be losing his did stand out. At one point, Stinky is trying to get past an angel so he can continue to tempt some humans. Stinky cries out "I demand my Civil Rights!" to which the angel responds "That doesn't work here, Stinky!" (eccentric formatting as in in the original). As far as I can tell, Jack Chick is attempting to make some sort of political argument here along the lines of "civil rights are a demonic concept." I don't know what to say to that.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Insane Clown Posse and Science: Deliberate Ignorance
Insance Clown Posse is a rap group known for dressing up like clowns and demonstrating proficiency with using the word "fuck" as an adjective or adverb. Their fans, called Juggalos, often border on the fanatical. Recently the group released a song called "Miracles" in which they assert that all sorts of everyday things are miracles. This list includes eclipses, giraffes, magnets, rainbows, butterflies and how children look like their parents.
Warning: the following video is painful. The pain comes not just from the stupidity of the lyrics but the fact that the music just sucks. Watch at your own risk.
By itself, this song might be dismissed as silly. However, the song contains the lyrics "And I don't wanna talk to a scientist/Y'all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed." When this song came out, there was a fair bit of uproar. Although science is abused by people everywhere in the political spectrum, it is rare for such a direct attack to occur. Taken together with the fact that every single thing listed in the song was some bit of science that is normally explained before people are in 9th grade, the reaction was predictable and humorous. They included Learn Your Motherf#@kin’ Science: A Textbook for Juggalos(amusing but for the fact that they explain rainbows incorrectly) and Rebecca Watson's imagining of how the song lyrics were devised.
This could have ended there. But Insane Clown Posse managed to dig themselves in into an even deeper hole. In one interview, the interviewer asked them if they knew yet how magnets worked and they replied that they were proud that they did not. They also wrote an official response to criticism of the song in which they made it clear that not only don't like learning but "We feel like these haters are the big dumb, popular jocks ganging up on the little class clown scrub." It isn't clear to me in what universe Insane Clown Posse operates if they think that the people who like science were the "big dumb, popular jocks." I'm also a bit confused by the notion that the people who know things like how a rainbow works are "dumb" but it may just be that I'm too stupid to understand. Similarly, it may be due to my stupidity that I'm wondering how they would be sure to put a comma between "dumb" and "popular" but not between "big" and "dumb." Is big actually an adverb modifying dumb? Is "big dumb" some sort of compound adjective? If only scientists were popular; I suspect that such a world would be a much better place.
This could have ended there but then Insane Clown Posse made another mistake: They had a concert in San Francisco, a city full of nerds. Noisebridge, a volunteer group devoted to science education around San Francisco decided to use the Posse's visit to their fair city as an opportunity to educate the Juggalos. They made a series of posters explaining how various things work, with titles like "Fuckin' butterflies, how do they work?" They then dressed up with Juggalo-style clown facepaint as well as labcoats, and went to the concert. They videotaped the result:
As you can see in the video, the Insane Clown Posse roadcrew had seen the Noisebridge website in advance where they had planned the event. Apparently, the Insane Clown Posse was not happy with these scientists, forced them to leave, and tried to take away their video camera. Now, one might think that this was just the work of an overzealous roadcrew claiming to have authority from the people in charge, but there's the not so tiny detail that one of the Insane Clown Posse members bragged on his Twitter account that they "ran those scientist haters off." I wish I were making that up. If I had seen the phrase "scientist haters" in any other context I would have guessed that it meant people who hate scientists. What we have here are people who are so proud of their ignorance that they actually interfere with other people engaging in a humorous attempt to educate.
Now, what could possibly make this situation worse? If you guessed "Insane Clown Posse claims to be religious" then you win a gold star. The exact nature of the band's religious status is not clear. Although songs include lyrics about murder, cannibalism, and necrophilia, the individuals who commit these actions always suffer at the end. They have a series of songs centering around a Carnival which punishes people, and the last such song contains the lyrics "Truth is we follow GOD, we’ve always been behind Him. The carnival is God and may all juggalos find him! He’s out there!” And did I mention they hate gays? So the Insane Clown Posse apparently, hates science, hates gays, and believes in a deity whose chief job is to punish people. If you're wondering if they self-identify as Christian then you win another gold star.
Still, the level of anti-science attitudes here is shocking. It resembles nothing more than a caricature of what is wrong with contemporary Christianity. I don't think that band's Christianity has anything deeply to do with their anti-science attitude. For example, they haven't come out strongly against evolution. The correlation in this case is to some extent probably incidental. But there is a real lesson here and it is contained in their strange idea that scientists are the "big, dumb jocks." That idea is very divorced from reality. How can someone be so wrong about the world around them? Let me suggest that it is because science is the best method we have of finding out about the nature of reality. It isn't the only one, but it is the most reliable and the one that has given us the most fruit. So, when you take an attitude that is so anti-science and against the minimal knowledge of how basic genetics works, or any of a hundred other subjects, you are going to not have good methods for telling whether your beliefs about reality map accurately to reality. And the more effort you make to deny science, the further divorced from reality you will become, to the point where you believe the nerdy guys who work in the labs and like to understand how things work are actually "big dumb, popular jocks."
Warning: the following video is painful. The pain comes not just from the stupidity of the lyrics but the fact that the music just sucks. Watch at your own risk.
By itself, this song might be dismissed as silly. However, the song contains the lyrics "And I don't wanna talk to a scientist/Y'all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed." When this song came out, there was a fair bit of uproar. Although science is abused by people everywhere in the political spectrum, it is rare for such a direct attack to occur. Taken together with the fact that every single thing listed in the song was some bit of science that is normally explained before people are in 9th grade, the reaction was predictable and humorous. They included Learn Your Motherf#@kin’ Science: A Textbook for Juggalos(amusing but for the fact that they explain rainbows incorrectly) and Rebecca Watson's imagining of how the song lyrics were devised.
This could have ended there. But Insane Clown Posse managed to dig themselves in into an even deeper hole. In one interview, the interviewer asked them if they knew yet how magnets worked and they replied that they were proud that they did not. They also wrote an official response to criticism of the song in which they made it clear that not only don't like learning but "We feel like these haters are the big dumb, popular jocks ganging up on the little class clown scrub." It isn't clear to me in what universe Insane Clown Posse operates if they think that the people who like science were the "big dumb, popular jocks." I'm also a bit confused by the notion that the people who know things like how a rainbow works are "dumb" but it may just be that I'm too stupid to understand. Similarly, it may be due to my stupidity that I'm wondering how they would be sure to put a comma between "dumb" and "popular" but not between "big" and "dumb." Is big actually an adverb modifying dumb? Is "big dumb" some sort of compound adjective? If only scientists were popular; I suspect that such a world would be a much better place.
This could have ended there but then Insane Clown Posse made another mistake: They had a concert in San Francisco, a city full of nerds. Noisebridge, a volunteer group devoted to science education around San Francisco decided to use the Posse's visit to their fair city as an opportunity to educate the Juggalos. They made a series of posters explaining how various things work, with titles like "Fuckin' butterflies, how do they work?" They then dressed up with Juggalo-style clown facepaint as well as labcoats, and went to the concert. They videotaped the result:
As you can see in the video, the Insane Clown Posse roadcrew had seen the Noisebridge website in advance where they had planned the event. Apparently, the Insane Clown Posse was not happy with these scientists, forced them to leave, and tried to take away their video camera. Now, one might think that this was just the work of an overzealous roadcrew claiming to have authority from the people in charge, but there's the not so tiny detail that one of the Insane Clown Posse members bragged on his Twitter account that they "ran those scientist haters off." I wish I were making that up. If I had seen the phrase "scientist haters" in any other context I would have guessed that it meant people who hate scientists. What we have here are people who are so proud of their ignorance that they actually interfere with other people engaging in a humorous attempt to educate.
Now, what could possibly make this situation worse? If you guessed "Insane Clown Posse claims to be religious" then you win a gold star. The exact nature of the band's religious status is not clear. Although songs include lyrics about murder, cannibalism, and necrophilia, the individuals who commit these actions always suffer at the end. They have a series of songs centering around a Carnival which punishes people, and the last such song contains the lyrics "Truth is we follow GOD, we’ve always been behind Him. The carnival is God and may all juggalos find him! He’s out there!” And did I mention they hate gays? So the Insane Clown Posse apparently, hates science, hates gays, and believes in a deity whose chief job is to punish people. If you're wondering if they self-identify as Christian then you win another gold star.
Still, the level of anti-science attitudes here is shocking. It resembles nothing more than a caricature of what is wrong with contemporary Christianity. I don't think that band's Christianity has anything deeply to do with their anti-science attitude. For example, they haven't come out strongly against evolution. The correlation in this case is to some extent probably incidental. But there is a real lesson here and it is contained in their strange idea that scientists are the "big, dumb jocks." That idea is very divorced from reality. How can someone be so wrong about the world around them? Let me suggest that it is because science is the best method we have of finding out about the nature of reality. It isn't the only one, but it is the most reliable and the one that has given us the most fruit. So, when you take an attitude that is so anti-science and against the minimal knowledge of how basic genetics works, or any of a hundred other subjects, you are going to not have good methods for telling whether your beliefs about reality map accurately to reality. And the more effort you make to deny science, the further divorced from reality you will become, to the point where you believe the nerdy guys who work in the labs and like to understand how things work are actually "big dumb, popular jocks."
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
A Quick Note on the Mojave Cross
Last entry, I talked about the Supreme Court of the United States ruling about the cross in the Mojave desert. The ruling was wrong-headed and I am highly worried about the broader implications of allowing the cross to stand. However, at the moment I'm more worried by recent news that the cross was just stolen. This is not a solution. There are situations where violations of rights are so severe as to merit breaking the law to preserve them. This is unambiguously not one of those situations. Whoever did this should be ashamed of themselves.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
A Short Rant on Religious Freedom and the Courts
Two recent events make it all the more clear that religious liberty for all is in jeopardy. Recent events show that even in civilized, Western countries, basic religious freedom, whether for believers, agnostics or atheists hangs by a series of thin threads. Great Britain and the United States provide the two most recent examples.
The United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that game playing with transfers of small plots of land allow the federal government to endorse specific religions. Readers are likely familiar with the ongoing case of the war memorial cross in the Mojave desert. The federal government attempted to transfer the land just surrounding the cross to a private veterans group to prevent any issues with the establishment clause. The court decided not just that this game playing was acceptable but that it probably wasn't even necessary. Justice Kennedy wrote:
But not to worry, since while the US Supreme Court is busy whittling away at basic separation and church and state, the British are busy destroying the rights of people to say things which offend religion. Apparently leaving anti-religious tracts around in the wrong places in England can get you convicted. After leaving anti-religious tracts in an airport prayer room, Harold Taylor received a six-month suspended sentence and is now not allowed to carry anti-religious leaflets in public. As far as I can tell, the tracts left by Taylor were deeply unfunny cartoons that wouldn't have convinced anyone of anything. Taylor probably needs a few lessons in how to be funny and not just annoying(Jennifer McCreight could likely teach him a thing or two). But that shouldn't be a criminal offense either. At least Taylor's situation would still be unambiguously unacceptable in the United States.
These events highlight how important it is that Obama's next Supreme Court nominee be a strong supporter of free speech. Unfortunately, his previous nominee, Sotomayor, has a mixed record on such issues. Let's hope the next one is better.
The United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that game playing with transfers of small plots of land allow the federal government to endorse specific religions. Readers are likely familiar with the ongoing case of the war memorial cross in the Mojave desert. The federal government attempted to transfer the land just surrounding the cross to a private veterans group to prevent any issues with the establishment clause. The court decided not just that this game playing was acceptable but that it probably wasn't even necessary. Justice Kennedy wrote:
A Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs. Here, a Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.Because of course, the fact that fallen soldiers of other religions are buried with other symbols is of course besides the point. And the fact that the commonality of the cross is solely because the US is a majority Christian nation is besides the point. And the fact that some (small) Christian groups are actually uncomfortable with the cross as a religious symbol is also besides the point.
But not to worry, since while the US Supreme Court is busy whittling away at basic separation and church and state, the British are busy destroying the rights of people to say things which offend religion. Apparently leaving anti-religious tracts around in the wrong places in England can get you convicted. After leaving anti-religious tracts in an airport prayer room, Harold Taylor received a six-month suspended sentence and is now not allowed to carry anti-religious leaflets in public. As far as I can tell, the tracts left by Taylor were deeply unfunny cartoons that wouldn't have convinced anyone of anything. Taylor probably needs a few lessons in how to be funny and not just annoying(Jennifer McCreight could likely teach him a thing or two). But that shouldn't be a criminal offense either. At least Taylor's situation would still be unambiguously unacceptable in the United States.
These events highlight how important it is that Obama's next Supreme Court nominee be a strong supporter of free speech. Unfortunately, his previous nominee, Sotomayor, has a mixed record on such issues. Let's hope the next one is better.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Jack Chick and Consistent Theology
Two new Jack Chick tracts are up. They are both pretty mediocre. "The Royal Affair" tells the story of David and Bathsheba with a pretty standard threat of hellfire and brimstone at the end. There's nothing of note in the tract other than that Jack Chick apparently thinks that the word "literal" actually means "figurative." (Memo to Jack: David didn't go through a "literal hell." He went through a figurative hell. Figurative and literal have opposite meanings. They are not synonyms.)
The second tract, "Going Down?" is standard Chick tract but with a single interesting twist. It is not uncommon in Chick tracts for someone to have a near-death experience, briefly witness the horrors of hell, and then come back to life knowing about the terrible threat of hell. This tract is an example. However, whenever this happens in a Chick tract, the people who have experienced hell always then accept Jesus as their personal lord and savior. However, in this new tract, the person who experiences hell does not learn about Jesus but rather dies shortly thereafter being dragged back down to hell. Few tracts better illustrate the utterly random nature of the afterlife in Chick's universe: in this case, the return to this world appears to almost be a divine accounting error which doesn't even serve the minimal purpose of saving the individual's soul.
Contemplating this tract also leads to another issue: Chick's theology concerning the immediate afterlife is inconsistent. In most Chick tracts, when people die they stand before Jesus and are judged. In some tracts, such as the above, they are sent immediately to hell. I am aware of no tract in which someone dies and comes before Jesus only to come back to life. In a tiny minority of tracts (such as this one) people who die without Jesus instead go to a temporary realm to wait until they are judged on Doomsday.
Why is Chick's theology of the afterlife so varied? Does he realize how contradictory his various tracts are on this matter? The most obvious hypothesis is that Chick's theology has changed over time. However, there are no chronological trends in which of the three approaches to the afterlife he takes. I suspect that Chick simply does not care about the details of the afterlife that much since the primary issue is being saved or lost; all else is secondary. Thus, a combination of whim and plot-demands control the exact depiction of the afterlife. Given Chick's apparent lack of great intellectualism he may not even have given the matter enough thought to realize the inconsistent nature of his theology.
I do hope that the May tracts are better than this set. It is a big let down given that in January we had a tract about angels fighting werewolves.
The second tract, "Going Down?" is standard Chick tract but with a single interesting twist. It is not uncommon in Chick tracts for someone to have a near-death experience, briefly witness the horrors of hell, and then come back to life knowing about the terrible threat of hell. This tract is an example. However, whenever this happens in a Chick tract, the people who have experienced hell always then accept Jesus as their personal lord and savior. However, in this new tract, the person who experiences hell does not learn about Jesus but rather dies shortly thereafter being dragged back down to hell. Few tracts better illustrate the utterly random nature of the afterlife in Chick's universe: in this case, the return to this world appears to almost be a divine accounting error which doesn't even serve the minimal purpose of saving the individual's soul.
Contemplating this tract also leads to another issue: Chick's theology concerning the immediate afterlife is inconsistent. In most Chick tracts, when people die they stand before Jesus and are judged. In some tracts, such as the above, they are sent immediately to hell. I am aware of no tract in which someone dies and comes before Jesus only to come back to life. In a tiny minority of tracts (such as this one) people who die without Jesus instead go to a temporary realm to wait until they are judged on Doomsday.
Why is Chick's theology of the afterlife so varied? Does he realize how contradictory his various tracts are on this matter? The most obvious hypothesis is that Chick's theology has changed over time. However, there are no chronological trends in which of the three approaches to the afterlife he takes. I suspect that Chick simply does not care about the details of the afterlife that much since the primary issue is being saved or lost; all else is secondary. Thus, a combination of whim and plot-demands control the exact depiction of the afterlife. Given Chick's apparent lack of great intellectualism he may not even have given the matter enough thought to realize the inconsistent nature of his theology.
I do hope that the May tracts are better than this set. It is a big let down given that in January we had a tract about angels fighting werewolves.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Purim and Don't Ask Don't Tell
Today is Purim, the Jewish holiday which celebrates the events recounted in the Book of Esther in which Esther and Mordechai stop Haman's plans to destroy the Jews. The story of the Book of Esther is one of hidden identity and palace intrigue.
My twin has a piece up at the Huffington Post that looks at the story of Purim in the context of the Don't Ask Don't Tell. Aaron argues that the story of Esther, in which she hides her Jewish identity from the king until she is forced to reveal it to save her people, bears a similarity to the military’s current policy regarding gays. In particular, Esther hid her ethnic/religious identity and the king did not inquire about that identity until events required Esther to disclose the truth. Aaron argues that this ancient tale reflects a basic truth about policies like Don't Ask Don't Tell: they are inherently unstable.
I am not impressed by the piece. The claim that DADT is inherently unstable is not novel: I don't think that anyone, whether they are for or against gays in the military, thought that DADT had any long-term stability. Policies in which an identity is acceptable only as long as it is not blatant are by nature unstable since such policies generally arise when certain groups are discriminated against, but the discrimination is not universally accepted and therefore must be discreet. To continue to use Jews as an example, the quotas on Jewish student admissions to Ivy League schools prior to the 1960s worked in a fashion similar to DADT. Applicants who were obviously Jewish were covered by the quotas. But little effort was made to actively determine the identity of general applicants. (This is to some extent an oversimplification. Dan Oren's excellent book "Joining the Club" discusses this in more detail). This ambivalence was in part due to the fact that Jews were accepted enough that a serious backlash was feared from excessive enforcement of the anti-Jewish quotas. Similarly, DADT in the military came as a compromise when both gay rights groups and anti-gay groups had political power. Such a compromise is inherently unstable.
Aaron also does not address the fact it is not clear from the text why Esther kept her Jewish identity secret from the king. Aaron cites the traditional commentaries which weave elaborate stories of Esther keeping the various classical prohibitions of Judaism such as kashrut and Sabbath observance. Some of the classical commentaries say that Esther kept her Jewish identity hidden because of Persian attitudes towards the Jews. Others invoke other explanations. For example, according to some commentators, Esther kept her identity hidden because of her relation to the line of Saul, the first king of Israel. If it became known that she was of royal blood, her political position would have become much more complicated. Given the ahistorical nature of the story of Esther, it seems to me that the likely reason for her keeping her Jewish identity hidden is primarily to make an interesting story.
My twin correctly notes that there are good reasons to abolish DADT and allow gays to serve openly in the military. However, those reasons exist without any analogies to Biblical texts. We can make the correct decisions without recourse to ancient texts whether we see those texts as religious or literary in nature. DADT is bad policy. We don’t need the story of Esther and Mordechai to tell us that.
My twin has a piece up at the Huffington Post that looks at the story of Purim in the context of the Don't Ask Don't Tell. Aaron argues that the story of Esther, in which she hides her Jewish identity from the king until she is forced to reveal it to save her people, bears a similarity to the military’s current policy regarding gays. In particular, Esther hid her ethnic/religious identity and the king did not inquire about that identity until events required Esther to disclose the truth. Aaron argues that this ancient tale reflects a basic truth about policies like Don't Ask Don't Tell: they are inherently unstable.
I am not impressed by the piece. The claim that DADT is inherently unstable is not novel: I don't think that anyone, whether they are for or against gays in the military, thought that DADT had any long-term stability. Policies in which an identity is acceptable only as long as it is not blatant are by nature unstable since such policies generally arise when certain groups are discriminated against, but the discrimination is not universally accepted and therefore must be discreet. To continue to use Jews as an example, the quotas on Jewish student admissions to Ivy League schools prior to the 1960s worked in a fashion similar to DADT. Applicants who were obviously Jewish were covered by the quotas. But little effort was made to actively determine the identity of general applicants. (This is to some extent an oversimplification. Dan Oren's excellent book "Joining the Club" discusses this in more detail). This ambivalence was in part due to the fact that Jews were accepted enough that a serious backlash was feared from excessive enforcement of the anti-Jewish quotas. Similarly, DADT in the military came as a compromise when both gay rights groups and anti-gay groups had political power. Such a compromise is inherently unstable.
Aaron also does not address the fact it is not clear from the text why Esther kept her Jewish identity secret from the king. Aaron cites the traditional commentaries which weave elaborate stories of Esther keeping the various classical prohibitions of Judaism such as kashrut and Sabbath observance. Some of the classical commentaries say that Esther kept her Jewish identity hidden because of Persian attitudes towards the Jews. Others invoke other explanations. For example, according to some commentators, Esther kept her identity hidden because of her relation to the line of Saul, the first king of Israel. If it became known that she was of royal blood, her political position would have become much more complicated. Given the ahistorical nature of the story of Esther, it seems to me that the likely reason for her keeping her Jewish identity hidden is primarily to make an interesting story.
My twin correctly notes that there are good reasons to abolish DADT and allow gays to serve openly in the military. However, those reasons exist without any analogies to Biblical texts. We can make the correct decisions without recourse to ancient texts whether we see those texts as religious or literary in nature. DADT is bad policy. We don’t need the story of Esther and Mordechai to tell us that.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
A Different Take on Ireland's New Blasphemy Law
Readers are likely aware that Ireland has a new anti-blasphemy law. The response to the law has been understandably negative. It is hard to reconcile outlawing of blasphemy and modern notions of free speech. The law has been met with mockery and derision. See for example here and here. However, Whiskey Fire has an interesting piece up arguing that the law makes much more sense in context. In particular, an anti-blasphemy law is required by the Irish Constitution. The new blasphemy law helps actually minimize the chance that blasphemy prosecutions will occur since the large fines mandated by the law force any blasphemy prosecutions have to occur under the Irish High Court rather than the circuit courts. This effectively prevents local yahoos from filing blasphemy charges. Whiskey Fire's entire piece is very worth reading and is a good example of how political situations can often be more complicated than they first appear.
Hat tip to Almost Diamonds.
Hat tip to Almost Diamonds.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Jack Chick, Native Americans and Henotheism
Everyone's favorite Christian fundamentalist tract writer, Jack Chick, has a new tract, Crazy Wolf. This tract is apparently aimed at Native Americans and attempts to show how their traditional religious beliefs are really demon worship.
The tract starts with two stereotypical Native Americans talking about how one of their own, Mary, has accepted the "White God" and how they are unhappy with her. One of them, Margaret, is particularly unhappy because Mary tried to evangelize to Margaret's young daughter Sarah. I guess Jack Chick can't quite understand why someone might be justifiably upset if someone tried to interfere with one's kids’ religious upbringings.
Margaret then discusses how they tried to get a medicine man to put a curse on Mary, but "some strange power" prevented the medicine man's curse from working. So, they decided to ask the assistance of a powerful witch named Crazy Wolf.
Notice that every individual so far in this tract has an English name except for the old, evil witch. I guess it's just a sign of how baddass he is that he as stereotypic name, or something like that. At least his name isn't "Injun Joe."
Of course, Crazy Wolf tries to use his Devil-granted powers to shapechange into a massive wolf to eat Mary. He fails because of Mary and her pastor's prayers. An angel materializes which beats up Crazy Wolf. Mary then further prays that Crazy Wolf will accept Jesus as his personal lord and savior.
We all know this part of the routine: Injun Joe, sorry, Crazy Wolf, talks to Mary and accepts Jesus as his personal lord and savior. Crazy Wolf declares that "my real name is Billie Wolf." Apparently, he has a good name, but it only gets used once he's saved. Then, as happens in so many Jack Chick tracts, he dies a violent death, as Margaret shoots him with a shotgun in revenge for failing to kill Mary.
Crazy Wolf goes to heaven and is told that "You just made it by the skin of your teeth! You believed on(sic) Me and that saved you. Billie Wolf, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord." Margaret of course goes to hell to burn for eternity.
This tract raises some interesting issues about Chick's theology. For example, as with some prior tracts, demonic forces are not only real, but very powerful. There's an almost henotheistic aspect to the story. Henotheism is the belief that many deities exist while only worshipping one. Chick’s Jesus becomes relevant primarily after death or during the apocalypse. In Chick’s pantheon, there are many deities but Jesus, the deity of death and destruction, reigns supreme.
Implied in this narrative is the teaching that prayer for a soul can actively lead to salvation. This is confusing. The entire point of Chick’s theology is that all that matters is whether an individual has accepted Jesus or not. If God and prayer can alter that decision, then the even minimal theological explanation of why everyone is not saved breaks down. It becomes within God’s power to alter whether or not individuals are saved. This renders the primary evangelical apologetic of such a deity non-feasible. In particular, damnation is usually defended by arguing that God cannot force people to accept Jesus as their savior. Yet here we see God apparently doing exactly that.
The importance of names is also worth noting. Aside from the not so subtle racism associated with Chick’s name choices, this is part of a general pattern in Chick's theology. What one calls something matters. Thus, for example, in previous tracts aimed at Islam, Chick argues that Allah is not just another word for God. This brings up an issue: Consider the following hypothetical: Someone is explained the entire evangelical belief system but with the words "Satan" and "Jesus Christ" swapped throughout. Then that person accepts Satan as personal lord and savior, does Chick think that that person is saved or not? If names matter then presumably Chick would believe that such an individual is not saved.
The tract of course ends with the usual warning that only Jesus saves. But the wording is worth noting: "Trusting religion, idols, ceremonies, nature gods or the Virgin Mary to save you is only chasing the wind!" That last phrase is not normally in these tracts. I suspect that to Chick "chasing the wind" sounded like an Injun phrase. This fits Chick's Jesus using the phrase "skin of your teeth" which is much less formal than how Chick's faceless, glowing Jesus normally talks.
So what is the overall lesson of this tract? The take away message seems to be that Native Americans are primitive savages but they get cool magical powers. And as long as you accept Jesus eventually, you get to play with the powers for a long time.
Note: Between drafting and posting this review I ran across another review that is worth reading.
The tract starts with two stereotypical Native Americans talking about how one of their own, Mary, has accepted the "White God" and how they are unhappy with her. One of them, Margaret, is particularly unhappy because Mary tried to evangelize to Margaret's young daughter Sarah. I guess Jack Chick can't quite understand why someone might be justifiably upset if someone tried to interfere with one's kids’ religious upbringings.
Margaret then discusses how they tried to get a medicine man to put a curse on Mary, but "some strange power" prevented the medicine man's curse from working. So, they decided to ask the assistance of a powerful witch named Crazy Wolf.
Notice that every individual so far in this tract has an English name except for the old, evil witch. I guess it's just a sign of how baddass he is that he as stereotypic name, or something like that. At least his name isn't "Injun Joe."
Of course, Crazy Wolf tries to use his Devil-granted powers to shapechange into a massive wolf to eat Mary. He fails because of Mary and her pastor's prayers. An angel materializes which beats up Crazy Wolf. Mary then further prays that Crazy Wolf will accept Jesus as his personal lord and savior.
We all know this part of the routine: Injun Joe, sorry, Crazy Wolf, talks to Mary and accepts Jesus as his personal lord and savior. Crazy Wolf declares that "my real name is Billie Wolf." Apparently, he has a good name, but it only gets used once he's saved. Then, as happens in so many Jack Chick tracts, he dies a violent death, as Margaret shoots him with a shotgun in revenge for failing to kill Mary.
Crazy Wolf goes to heaven and is told that "You just made it by the skin of your teeth! You believed on(sic) Me and that saved you. Billie Wolf, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord." Margaret of course goes to hell to burn for eternity.
This tract raises some interesting issues about Chick's theology. For example, as with some prior tracts, demonic forces are not only real, but very powerful. There's an almost henotheistic aspect to the story. Henotheism is the belief that many deities exist while only worshipping one. Chick’s Jesus becomes relevant primarily after death or during the apocalypse. In Chick’s pantheon, there are many deities but Jesus, the deity of death and destruction, reigns supreme.
Implied in this narrative is the teaching that prayer for a soul can actively lead to salvation. This is confusing. The entire point of Chick’s theology is that all that matters is whether an individual has accepted Jesus or not. If God and prayer can alter that decision, then the even minimal theological explanation of why everyone is not saved breaks down. It becomes within God’s power to alter whether or not individuals are saved. This renders the primary evangelical apologetic of such a deity non-feasible. In particular, damnation is usually defended by arguing that God cannot force people to accept Jesus as their savior. Yet here we see God apparently doing exactly that.
The importance of names is also worth noting. Aside from the not so subtle racism associated with Chick’s name choices, this is part of a general pattern in Chick's theology. What one calls something matters. Thus, for example, in previous tracts aimed at Islam, Chick argues that Allah is not just another word for God. This brings up an issue: Consider the following hypothetical: Someone is explained the entire evangelical belief system but with the words "Satan" and "Jesus Christ" swapped throughout. Then that person accepts Satan as personal lord and savior, does Chick think that that person is saved or not? If names matter then presumably Chick would believe that such an individual is not saved.
The tract of course ends with the usual warning that only Jesus saves. But the wording is worth noting: "Trusting religion, idols, ceremonies, nature gods or the Virgin Mary to save you is only chasing the wind!" That last phrase is not normally in these tracts. I suspect that to Chick "chasing the wind" sounded like an Injun phrase. This fits Chick's Jesus using the phrase "skin of your teeth" which is much less formal than how Chick's faceless, glowing Jesus normally talks.
So what is the overall lesson of this tract? The take away message seems to be that Native Americans are primitive savages but they get cool magical powers. And as long as you accept Jesus eventually, you get to play with the powers for a long time.
Note: Between drafting and posting this review I ran across another review that is worth reading.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Orthodox Judaism, Science, and Natan Slifkin
Both Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox/Charedi Jews commonly reject many basic parts of the scientific understanding of the world. For example, many Orthodox Jews believe in a global Nocahian deluge some five thousand years ago and reject evolution. In the charedi world, this rejection of science is even broader. The charedi rejection of science is substantially different from that of other branches of Orthodoxy. Rather than simply reject specific theories based on their own theological predilections, charedim, including charedi leaders (called by their followers "Gedolim" which is Hebrew for "great ones") take an actively hostile view of science.
I was unaware of the depth of charedi fear of and disdain for science until I recently began examining the controversy surrounding Natan Slifkin. Slifkin is a charedi Rabbi who wrote a series of books looking at the interplay between Judaism and biology. Slifkin made three primary of arguments: First, he argued that the evidence for evolution was overwhelmimg. Second, he argued that belief in evolution was not incompatible with Judaism. Third, he argued that the Rabbis of the Talmud could be wrong about science. For the charedim, the second two points apparently caused far more concern than the first. In 2005, many of the Gedolim joined to issue a ruling in which Slifkin was labeled a heretic. Possession and reading of his books was banned.
The charedi rejection of science goes far beyond simple opposition to evolution. For example, I was recently disturbed to learn from a conversation with Slifkin that some major charedi Rabbis believe in spontaneous generation of small rodents. I had been aware that such beliefs had survived until the early 1900s, but I was shocked to find out that many prominent charedi rabbis still believe spontaneous generation of small creatures. The charedi attitude towards science is in many ways connected to a deep worry of persecution. Moshe Sternbuch, the current chief Rabbi of the Edah Charedis, a prominent organization of Israeli charedim, stated that scientists say the world is old because "they want to refute the words of our Sages and undermine the faith that exists amongst the Jewish people. Their main concern is to try to shake the faith in G-d — which has been accepted by us generation after generation."
For another example, see these videos of Rabbi Aharon Schechter in which Schechter gets actively angry at the thought of people trying to investigate evolution, the age of the earth and related questions:
This attitude, one of perceived persecution and anger, seems to stem from two sources: First the charedi worldview is very wrapped up in the history of persecution against Jews. Thus, the charedim see any modern event in that light. Second, the charedi worldview is profoundly self-centered. They assume that essentially everyone cares about what they are doing. Thus, if scientists come to a conclusion that clashes with standard charedi beliefs, the charedi infer that the scientists are trying to target them. In this regard, comparison between the charedi leaders and the leaders of fundamentalist Christianity today is not favorable to the charedim. While many evangelical Christians and fundamentalist Christians reject much science, it is rare for their leaders to claim that scientists are trying specifically to destroy their religion.
However, the anti-science beliefs discussed here are not held by just the charedim. The modern Orthodox also have serious problems with much of science. Alexander Nussbaum has examined modern Orthodox attitudes towards science (see his article in Skeptic as well as Nussbaum's article "Creationism and Geocentrism Among Orthodox Jewish Scientists." in the January-April set of Reports of the National Center for Science Education). Nussbaum found that even among orthodox Jews attending secular colleges, a large fraction reject much of biology, astronomy, geology and other branches of science. About three quarters of the respondents when asked about the age of the Earth, said that it was less than 7000 years old. The vast majority (around 90%) believed that all land animals descend from animals on Noah's ark. Possibly most disturbingly, around a quarter of the students believed that evolution was not only false, but that scientists were deliberately concealing this fact.
Nussbaum also found that undergraduates majoring in scientific areas were less likely to accept many aspects of basic science. Nussbaum proposed that:
Presumably the science majors would respond that they are more involved in science and so are more able to see the terrible problems with vast swaths of modern science.
While I had seen Nussbaum's work many years ago, I had generally assumed that something was wrong with his work. While these anti-science viewpoints were not unknown among the Orthodox students when I was an undergraduate at Yale, these views were not as popular as they appeared to be in Nussbaum's study. However, I'm now a graduate student interacting with students at Boston University. Here it seems that the profile of the Orthodox beliefs fits Nussbaum's data much better. Indeed, I recently found myself in a situation with six Orthodox students in the room and five out of the six believed in a literal global flood. When a conversation ensued, one student was unwilling to say whether he believed or not some of the more interesting claims in the Talmud such as the aforementioned spontaneous generation or the existence of the phoenix. That may have been in part due to the student not wanting to discuss the matter, but the overall reaction still agrees strongly with Nussbaum.
Why are otherwise moderate theists so willing to disregard large sections of modern understanding of the world? There are a variety of factors at play. However, one factor that is worth considering is the Orthodox attitude towards Talmudic rabbis, Talmud, and associated midrashic texts. While in some respects Jewish willingness to look at associated commentary or to interpret verses using Oral Law allows for moderation and incorporation of new knowledge. That willingness can also backfire. In particular, for many Orthodox Jews, statements made by Talmudic rabbis are by nature intrinsically infallible. Thus, instead of using the Oral Law as a way of reconciling science and religion, it is used to add additional statements that must be taken as literally true. whether they are about mice arising from mud, or birds burning themselves to regenerate for another life.
So far, this anti-scientific attitude does have some limits. I'm not aware of any Orthodox Jews (regardless of type) who believe in a flat earth. But geocentrism does certainly exist among Orthodox Jews. Most disturbingly, however, is that these anti-science views seem to be becoming more common rather than less in the Orthodox world, especially in the charedi world. The charedi world is not disconnected from the rest of the Orthodox world. If the charedi world becomes more extreme, it will likely pull the rest of the Orthodox world in the same direction.
If Modern Orthodox Judaism is to be taken seriously as a reasonable religion, able to survive in the modern world, then these trends need to be countered by responsible Orthodox leadership.
I was unaware of the depth of charedi fear of and disdain for science until I recently began examining the controversy surrounding Natan Slifkin. Slifkin is a charedi Rabbi who wrote a series of books looking at the interplay between Judaism and biology. Slifkin made three primary of arguments: First, he argued that the evidence for evolution was overwhelmimg. Second, he argued that belief in evolution was not incompatible with Judaism. Third, he argued that the Rabbis of the Talmud could be wrong about science. For the charedim, the second two points apparently caused far more concern than the first. In 2005, many of the Gedolim joined to issue a ruling in which Slifkin was labeled a heretic. Possession and reading of his books was banned.
The charedi rejection of science goes far beyond simple opposition to evolution. For example, I was recently disturbed to learn from a conversation with Slifkin that some major charedi Rabbis believe in spontaneous generation of small rodents. I had been aware that such beliefs had survived until the early 1900s, but I was shocked to find out that many prominent charedi rabbis still believe spontaneous generation of small creatures. The charedi attitude towards science is in many ways connected to a deep worry of persecution. Moshe Sternbuch, the current chief Rabbi of the Edah Charedis, a prominent organization of Israeli charedim, stated that scientists say the world is old because "they want to refute the words of our Sages and undermine the faith that exists amongst the Jewish people. Their main concern is to try to shake the faith in G-d — which has been accepted by us generation after generation."
For another example, see these videos of Rabbi Aharon Schechter in which Schechter gets actively angry at the thought of people trying to investigate evolution, the age of the earth and related questions:
This attitude, one of perceived persecution and anger, seems to stem from two sources: First the charedi worldview is very wrapped up in the history of persecution against Jews. Thus, the charedim see any modern event in that light. Second, the charedi worldview is profoundly self-centered. They assume that essentially everyone cares about what they are doing. Thus, if scientists come to a conclusion that clashes with standard charedi beliefs, the charedi infer that the scientists are trying to target them. In this regard, comparison between the charedi leaders and the leaders of fundamentalist Christianity today is not favorable to the charedim. While many evangelical Christians and fundamentalist Christians reject much science, it is rare for their leaders to claim that scientists are trying specifically to destroy their religion.
However, the anti-science beliefs discussed here are not held by just the charedim. The modern Orthodox also have serious problems with much of science. Alexander Nussbaum has examined modern Orthodox attitudes towards science (see his article in Skeptic as well as Nussbaum's article "Creationism and Geocentrism Among Orthodox Jewish Scientists." in the January-April set of Reports of the National Center for Science Education). Nussbaum found that even among orthodox Jews attending secular colleges, a large fraction reject much of biology, astronomy, geology and other branches of science. About three quarters of the respondents when asked about the age of the Earth, said that it was less than 7000 years old. The vast majority (around 90%) believed that all land animals descend from animals on Noah's ark. Possibly most disturbingly, around a quarter of the students believed that evolution was not only false, but that scientists were deliberately concealing this fact.
Nussbaum also found that undergraduates majoring in scientific areas were less likely to accept many aspects of basic science. Nussbaum proposed that:
It seems that the science majors and degree holders — precisely because they were more likely to be exposed to evolution — were subject to additional community influences not to be “taken in” by the “heresy” they would hear, and were even less accepting of evolution. And individuals with a science background from that community have the added responsibility to use their knowledge and standing to promote religious doctrine in scientific matters.
Presumably the science majors would respond that they are more involved in science and so are more able to see the terrible problems with vast swaths of modern science.
While I had seen Nussbaum's work many years ago, I had generally assumed that something was wrong with his work. While these anti-science viewpoints were not unknown among the Orthodox students when I was an undergraduate at Yale, these views were not as popular as they appeared to be in Nussbaum's study. However, I'm now a graduate student interacting with students at Boston University. Here it seems that the profile of the Orthodox beliefs fits Nussbaum's data much better. Indeed, I recently found myself in a situation with six Orthodox students in the room and five out of the six believed in a literal global flood. When a conversation ensued, one student was unwilling to say whether he believed or not some of the more interesting claims in the Talmud such as the aforementioned spontaneous generation or the existence of the phoenix. That may have been in part due to the student not wanting to discuss the matter, but the overall reaction still agrees strongly with Nussbaum.
Why are otherwise moderate theists so willing to disregard large sections of modern understanding of the world? There are a variety of factors at play. However, one factor that is worth considering is the Orthodox attitude towards Talmudic rabbis, Talmud, and associated midrashic texts. While in some respects Jewish willingness to look at associated commentary or to interpret verses using Oral Law allows for moderation and incorporation of new knowledge. That willingness can also backfire. In particular, for many Orthodox Jews, statements made by Talmudic rabbis are by nature intrinsically infallible. Thus, instead of using the Oral Law as a way of reconciling science and religion, it is used to add additional statements that must be taken as literally true. whether they are about mice arising from mud, or birds burning themselves to regenerate for another life.
So far, this anti-scientific attitude does have some limits. I'm not aware of any Orthodox Jews (regardless of type) who believe in a flat earth. But geocentrism does certainly exist among Orthodox Jews. Most disturbingly, however, is that these anti-science views seem to be becoming more common rather than less in the Orthodox world, especially in the charedi world. The charedi world is not disconnected from the rest of the Orthodox world. If the charedi world becomes more extreme, it will likely pull the rest of the Orthodox world in the same direction.
If Modern Orthodox Judaism is to be taken seriously as a reasonable religion, able to survive in the modern world, then these trends need to be countered by responsible Orthodox leadership.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Minyanim and Mathematics: A protocol for anonymous counting.
In Judaism, many communal prayers require a minimum of ten people. This quorum is called a "minyan" which is often also used to mean a service in general. (In Orthodox Judaism, only Jewish adult males count for a minyam while in Conservative Judaism all Jewish adults count). However, certain liturgical elements on fast days (such as a Torah reading at the afternoon prayer) require not just ten present, but ten who are actually fasting.
However, people may not wish to advertise that they are not fasting even if they are willing to assist with the minyan. Moreover, even a very observant individual might have a reason not to fast and would not want people to know about it (such as a medical condition). This leads to the following problem: How do we determine how many people are fasting without requiring people to disclose whether or not they are fasting?
In a recent minyan I attended, this question was handled by the gabbai (the person in charge of running the minyan) asking everyone to close their eyes and hold up one hand if they were fasting. This is obviously unsatisfactory since the gabbai finds out who is fasting. One could suggest slips of paper or the like. but they could be easily connected to particular individuals. To make this problem interesting, it is helpful to assume that everyone knows the identity of the sender of any communication they receive. Is there a solution under which individuals' statuses remain private while the minyan is assured of 10 fasters?
Curiously the answer is yes albeit the solution is a bit cumbersome. Here's how: The gabbai picks a random integer (the distribution doesn't matter although in practice one might want a reasonable distribution that approximates a bell curve or an exponential distribution or something similar). The gabbai takes this integer and adds 1 to it if he is fasting. The gabbai whispers this number to another person. That person adds 1 to the total if he is fasting and similarly passes it on to another person. The last person gives his number to the gabbai. The gabbai now subtracts the random integer that they initially added. The total the gabbai has is the number of people fasting.
A few notes about this algorithm. First, it is important that, when the gabbai is picking a random integer, that every integer has some non-zero probability of being chosen. Consider, for example, what would happen if the gabbai was known to only pick positive integers. If the gabbai picks 1, the next person can tell if the gabbai is not fasting. Thus, the gabbai can never pick 1. But then, by the same logic, the gabbai won't be able to pick 2. Or 3. And so on. This problem is avoided if the gabbai can pick any integer whether or not it is positive.
There is also a degenerate case of if only the gabbia is fasting or only the gabbai is not fasting. In those cases, the exceptional individual can work out the status of everyone else.
The algorithm also assumes that people are not going out of their way to obtain information. If two people bracket a third and cooperate, they can figure out the middle person's status as a faster.
In fact, it turns out that it is possible to make a more sophisticated protocol that would prevent this and similar tricks. This would be a variation of an anonymous voting algorithm. However, these algorithms rely on clever cryptography with large prime numbers which is only believed to work rather than proven to work. Implementation also would require much more computation than can be done by hand.
Less intensive algorithms can be used to increase the number of people who must cooperate. It is, for example, an interesting exercise to construct a variation of the above such that finding out someone's status requires the cooperation of at least three people.
This algorithm in practice is cumbersome. Moreover, the goal it seeks to accomplish is minor since, if the fast day liturgy is used, those sections of the services actually need to be performed by people who are fasting. Thus, the gabbai will need to know the status of at least a few people. However, this algorithm has the slight advantage that, if there are not enough people to recite the fast day liturgy, then no one will know which people cause the deficiency.
However, people may not wish to advertise that they are not fasting even if they are willing to assist with the minyan. Moreover, even a very observant individual might have a reason not to fast and would not want people to know about it (such as a medical condition). This leads to the following problem: How do we determine how many people are fasting without requiring people to disclose whether or not they are fasting?
In a recent minyan I attended, this question was handled by the gabbai (the person in charge of running the minyan) asking everyone to close their eyes and hold up one hand if they were fasting. This is obviously unsatisfactory since the gabbai finds out who is fasting. One could suggest slips of paper or the like. but they could be easily connected to particular individuals. To make this problem interesting, it is helpful to assume that everyone knows the identity of the sender of any communication they receive. Is there a solution under which individuals' statuses remain private while the minyan is assured of 10 fasters?
Curiously the answer is yes albeit the solution is a bit cumbersome. Here's how: The gabbai picks a random integer (the distribution doesn't matter although in practice one might want a reasonable distribution that approximates a bell curve or an exponential distribution or something similar). The gabbai takes this integer and adds 1 to it if he is fasting. The gabbai whispers this number to another person. That person adds 1 to the total if he is fasting and similarly passes it on to another person. The last person gives his number to the gabbai. The gabbai now subtracts the random integer that they initially added. The total the gabbai has is the number of people fasting.
A few notes about this algorithm. First, it is important that, when the gabbai is picking a random integer, that every integer has some non-zero probability of being chosen. Consider, for example, what would happen if the gabbai was known to only pick positive integers. If the gabbai picks 1, the next person can tell if the gabbai is not fasting. Thus, the gabbai can never pick 1. But then, by the same logic, the gabbai won't be able to pick 2. Or 3. And so on. This problem is avoided if the gabbai can pick any integer whether or not it is positive.
There is also a degenerate case of if only the gabbia is fasting or only the gabbai is not fasting. In those cases, the exceptional individual can work out the status of everyone else.
The algorithm also assumes that people are not going out of their way to obtain information. If two people bracket a third and cooperate, they can figure out the middle person's status as a faster.
In fact, it turns out that it is possible to make a more sophisticated protocol that would prevent this and similar tricks. This would be a variation of an anonymous voting algorithm. However, these algorithms rely on clever cryptography with large prime numbers which is only believed to work rather than proven to work. Implementation also would require much more computation than can be done by hand.
Less intensive algorithms can be used to increase the number of people who must cooperate. It is, for example, an interesting exercise to construct a variation of the above such that finding out someone's status requires the cooperation of at least three people.
This algorithm in practice is cumbersome. Moreover, the goal it seeks to accomplish is minor since, if the fast day liturgy is used, those sections of the services actually need to be performed by people who are fasting. Thus, the gabbai will need to know the status of at least a few people. However, this algorithm has the slight advantage that, if there are not enough people to recite the fast day liturgy, then no one will know which people cause the deficiency.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Westboro Baptist Church at Boston University
Readers are likely familiar with the Westboro Baptist Church as the strange cult run by Fred Phelps which is devoted to telling the world that God hates them. A lot. They are most known for the slogans "God Hates America" and "God Hates Fags." Pretty much there is no group they don't hate. They even have a song about called God Hates the World, to the tune of "We Are the World." They have a fascinating eschatology in which in the end time God will ask them what should be done with the rest of humanity and they'll gleefully tell God to send humanity to hell. Some people who don't know much about the Church have speculated that the Church exists really just to make the right-wing look bad.
Why am I thinking of the Westboro Baptist Church? Today they came to Boston University to protest. I think this time they were nominally protesting Jews. Or something like that. Apparently they had signs attacking a lot of different groups.
Unfortunately, I had office hours when they were protesting. This isn't fun. When Ray Comfort was distributing his version of Origin of Species to a hundred universities across the nation, he neglected to include Boston University and I was unable to get to Harvard or MIT where there was distribution.
I've concluded that there is a God. God is taunting me by dangling interesting groups just close enough that I'm aware of them but not so close as to actually get to talk to them. God probably sees me as sort of like a cat and sees the various crazies as akin to a laser pointer.
Just my luck, Neturei Karta will probably come to campus and I'll miss them also.
Why am I thinking of the Westboro Baptist Church? Today they came to Boston University to protest. I think this time they were nominally protesting Jews. Or something like that. Apparently they had signs attacking a lot of different groups.
Unfortunately, I had office hours when they were protesting. This isn't fun. When Ray Comfort was distributing his version of Origin of Species to a hundred universities across the nation, he neglected to include Boston University and I was unable to get to Harvard or MIT where there was distribution.
I've concluded that there is a God. God is taunting me by dangling interesting groups just close enough that I'm aware of them but not so close as to actually get to talk to them. God probably sees me as sort of like a cat and sees the various crazies as akin to a laser pointer.
Just my luck, Neturei Karta will probably come to campus and I'll miss them also.
Friday, November 27, 2009
C.S. Lewis, the Trilemma, and Cultural Norms
A common Christian apologetic argument is the Trilemma. First introduced by C.S. Lewis, this argument since Lewis has undergone modification. However, the basic argument has not changed. As the argument goes, Jesus, was either telling the truth when he said that he was God, Jesus was lying, or Jesus was insane. This is generally abbreviated as “Lord, Liar or Lunatic.”
Lewis used this argument primarily as a response to people who thought that Jesus was a good person. but not the Son of God. Lewis argued that this was not a possibility since, if Jesus was not telling the truth, then one of the other two possibilities must hold. In its more modern form, the argument is identical, but evidence is presented as well that the last two possibilities don’t hold.
The argument in either the original form of Lewis or in other variants, suffers from flaws. The most serious flaw is the reliability of the Gospels as record of what Jesus said. It is not at all implausible that Jesus didn’t claim to be the Son of God, but such claims were later asserted by followers. Or Jesus could have in fact said exactly what he is quoted as but have been genuinely mistaken. These are two are two good detailed discussions of these and other flaws. Rather than discuss the flaws, I’d like to examine why this argument is so effective apologetics.
The argument, especially in its post-Lewis form (such as that advanced by Joshua McDowell in his “Evidence that Demands A Verdict”) does not explicitly invoke the presupposition that the audience thinks that Jesus was a great man . However, in an unstated form, this approach is far more effective. We live in a society with few taboos stronger than saying negative statements about Jesus. Indeed, even if one asks most Jews who live in the United States what they think of Jesus, they will feel compelled to say something like “I think he was a great teacher” or something similar. Thus, to most people, the notion that Jesus was either a lunatic or a liar is so repulsive (or politically incorrect) that when faced with those alternatives, they have no choice but to rush to the third possibility. The Trilemma thus rests on implicit cultural norms that Lewis was willing to make explicit. His successors have been less forthcoming.
Lewis used this argument primarily as a response to people who thought that Jesus was a good person. but not the Son of God. Lewis argued that this was not a possibility since, if Jesus was not telling the truth, then one of the other two possibilities must hold. In its more modern form, the argument is identical, but evidence is presented as well that the last two possibilities don’t hold.
The argument in either the original form of Lewis or in other variants, suffers from flaws. The most serious flaw is the reliability of the Gospels as record of what Jesus said. It is not at all implausible that Jesus didn’t claim to be the Son of God, but such claims were later asserted by followers. Or Jesus could have in fact said exactly what he is quoted as but have been genuinely mistaken. These are two are two good detailed discussions of these and other flaws. Rather than discuss the flaws, I’d like to examine why this argument is so effective apologetics.
The argument, especially in its post-Lewis form (such as that advanced by Joshua McDowell in his “Evidence that Demands A Verdict”) does not explicitly invoke the presupposition that the audience thinks that Jesus was a great man . However, in an unstated form, this approach is far more effective. We live in a society with few taboos stronger than saying negative statements about Jesus. Indeed, even if one asks most Jews who live in the United States what they think of Jesus, they will feel compelled to say something like “I think he was a great teacher” or something similar. Thus, to most people, the notion that Jesus was either a lunatic or a liar is so repulsive (or politically incorrect) that when faced with those alternatives, they have no choice but to rush to the third possibility. The Trilemma thus rests on implicit cultural norms that Lewis was willing to make explicit. His successors have been less forthcoming.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Malcolm Gladwell, Memes and Intellectual Honesty
I recently read Malcolm Gladwell’s “The Tipping Point.” As with Gladwell’s previous books, I found the book to be full of interesting tidbits, but lacking a coherent thesis. The book was sufficiently mediocre that I decided against reviewing the book. This is not a review. This is a discussion of Malcolm Gladwell’s lack of intellectual rigor.
Gladwell’s primary thesis is that ideas or behavior can, under the right circumstances, spread like an epidemic. What precisely this means is not clear. However, there is another, serious problem with this book, a glaring omission. People sometimes talk about something being “blindingly obvious.” In this case, the omission is so obvious that it is more akin to staring at the sun at high noon. This omission can be summarized by a single word that appears nowhere in the text: Meme.
In his 1976 book, “The Selfish Gene,” Richard Dawkins, coined the term “meme” to mean, in essence, a unit of cultural transmission that reproduces and is selected for, akin to how genes are selected for by natural selection. Since 1976, “meme” has been used more loosely to mean an idea or behavior that spreads in a viral fashion. The idea of a meme is similar, if not identical, to what Gladwell discusses. Despite that, the word “meme” never appears once in Gladwell’s book. Nor is Dawkins mentioned or referenced once in the text.
Gladwell’s book was first published in 2000, many years after Dawkins’s coinage. This is not a case of two minds independently and simultaneously arriving at the same idea, like Leibniz and Newton. This is one mind, presenting an idea and then another mind publishing a similar idea while failing to acknowledge prior work. By academic standards, this is completely unacceptable.
One might think that, possibly, Gladwell’s research was sloppy, and so he never learned about Dawkins’s term “meme.” However, I read Gladwell’s book on Kindle, which includes many updates since the original book was published. It is implausible that, in the last nine years, Gladwell has never heard the term “meme.” And yet, he felt no need to add even a footnote or a sentence about Dawkins’s important prior work.
Most damningly: Gladwell does mention the word “meme” in passing on his website in the FAQ about the book:
So an idea “very similar” to his doesn’t deserve a single mention in the entire book. Furthermore, the claim that the idea of a meme isn’t well-defined is simply false, as one can see from actually reading “The Selfish Gene.” Gladwell’s claim that individual memes have not been examined in detail is also false. Indeed, there was a Journal of Memetics for almost a decade that examined memes in detail. And if one accepts Dawkins notion that religion is inherently memetic, then all of religious studies is essentially an examination of memes. Some modern scholars have specifically examined religion in that context. In fact, Gladwell himself examines the rise of Methodism in the United States as an example.
Gladwell comes across as a child trying to explain why his hand was in the cookie jar. He advances a series of unconvincing, somewhat contradictory explanations, hoping that we will ignore the larger problem. So far as I can tell from Google searching, this strategy has worked; people have noted that Gladwell is talking about memes but no one has called him out for his failure to acknowledge this prior work. This isn’t acceptable. Gladwell’s behavior is intellectually dishonest. His failure to credit Dawkins or others who have thought about these ideas before him does a disservice to those individuals and to honest intellectual discourse. I don’t think Gladwell’s behavior constitutes plagiarism, but it certainly would be punished if it occurred in an academic setting. Failure to cite prior work results in a paper being rejected from any legitimate journal. If a student hands in an assignment that fails to cite prior work, the student receives a bad grade, if not outright failure. Gladwell owes his readers and Richard Dawkins an apology for his failure to acknowledge that Gladwell’s idea recycles Dawkins’s earlier work.
Gladwell’s primary thesis is that ideas or behavior can, under the right circumstances, spread like an epidemic. What precisely this means is not clear. However, there is another, serious problem with this book, a glaring omission. People sometimes talk about something being “blindingly obvious.” In this case, the omission is so obvious that it is more akin to staring at the sun at high noon. This omission can be summarized by a single word that appears nowhere in the text: Meme.
In his 1976 book, “The Selfish Gene,” Richard Dawkins, coined the term “meme” to mean, in essence, a unit of cultural transmission that reproduces and is selected for, akin to how genes are selected for by natural selection. Since 1976, “meme” has been used more loosely to mean an idea or behavior that spreads in a viral fashion. The idea of a meme is similar, if not identical, to what Gladwell discusses. Despite that, the word “meme” never appears once in Gladwell’s book. Nor is Dawkins mentioned or referenced once in the text.
Gladwell’s book was first published in 2000, many years after Dawkins’s coinage. This is not a case of two minds independently and simultaneously arriving at the same idea, like Leibniz and Newton. This is one mind, presenting an idea and then another mind publishing a similar idea while failing to acknowledge prior work. By academic standards, this is completely unacceptable.
One might think that, possibly, Gladwell’s research was sloppy, and so he never learned about Dawkins’s term “meme.” However, I read Gladwell’s book on Kindle, which includes many updates since the original book was published. It is implausible that, in the last nine years, Gladwell has never heard the term “meme.” And yet, he felt no need to add even a footnote or a sentence about Dawkins’s important prior work.
Most damningly: Gladwell does mention the word “meme” in passing on his website in the FAQ about the book:
5. Are you talking about the idea of memes, that has become so popular in academic circles recently?
It's very similar. A meme is a idea that behaves like a virus--that moves through a population, taking hold in each person it infects. I must say, though, that I don't much like that term. The thing that bothers me about the discussion of memes is that no one ever tries to define exactly what they are, and what makes a meme so contagious. I mean, you can put a virus under a microscope and point to all the genes on its surface that are responsible for making it so dangerous. So what happens when you look at an infectious idea under a microscope? I have a chapter where I try to do that. I use the example of children's television shows like Sesame Street and the new Nickelodeon program called Blues Clues. Both those are examples of shows that started learning epidemics in preschoolers, that turned kids onto reading and "infected" them with literacy. We sometimes think of Sesame Street as purely the result of the creative genius of people like Jim Henson and Frank Oz. But the truth is that it is carefully and painstaking engineered, down to the smallest details.
So an idea “very similar” to his doesn’t deserve a single mention in the entire book. Furthermore, the claim that the idea of a meme isn’t well-defined is simply false, as one can see from actually reading “The Selfish Gene.” Gladwell’s claim that individual memes have not been examined in detail is also false. Indeed, there was a Journal of Memetics for almost a decade that examined memes in detail. And if one accepts Dawkins notion that religion is inherently memetic, then all of religious studies is essentially an examination of memes. Some modern scholars have specifically examined religion in that context. In fact, Gladwell himself examines the rise of Methodism in the United States as an example.
Gladwell comes across as a child trying to explain why his hand was in the cookie jar. He advances a series of unconvincing, somewhat contradictory explanations, hoping that we will ignore the larger problem. So far as I can tell from Google searching, this strategy has worked; people have noted that Gladwell is talking about memes but no one has called him out for his failure to acknowledge this prior work. This isn’t acceptable. Gladwell’s behavior is intellectually dishonest. His failure to credit Dawkins or others who have thought about these ideas before him does a disservice to those individuals and to honest intellectual discourse. I don’t think Gladwell’s behavior constitutes plagiarism, but it certainly would be punished if it occurred in an academic setting. Failure to cite prior work results in a paper being rejected from any legitimate journal. If a student hands in an assignment that fails to cite prior work, the student receives a bad grade, if not outright failure. Gladwell owes his readers and Richard Dawkins an apology for his failure to acknowledge that Gladwell’s idea recycles Dawkins’s earlier work.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Where Are All the Smart Apologists?
Recently I read The Screw Tape Letters, a series of letters written by C.S. Lewis. The letters purport to be from an old demon giving advice to a young demon. Lewis is a smart, funny and talented writer. What the demon Screwtape says is as revealing and clever as what he does not say. This is not the only great work of apologetics by Lewis. Why are there no great Christian apologists like Lewis today?
Lewis is far from perfect. Lewis gave birth to one of the most annoying apologetic arguments, the Trilemma. However, even there his intelligence and originality shine through. I have not seen any contemporary apologist produce any argument that isn’t a tired repackaging of pre-existing arguments.
Who are the major apologists today? There really aren’t any in the influential way that Lewis was. But if one had to identify those who today continue the tradition of Christian apologetics, one would probably list Ray Comfort, William Demsbki, and Alister McGrath.
Do any of these people measure up to C. S. Lewis? No. Consider these writers individually:
Does Ray Comfort stack up to Lewis? No way. Ray Comfort is an idiot and an ignoramus. He’s the man who most famously tried to claim that the modern shape of the banana was evidence for a divine creator. Yes, the banana, a fruit that has been heavily modified by extensive breeding by humans, a fruit whose wild form is a nasty hard thing full of seeds.
Does William Dembski stack up to Lewis? Wililam Dembski isn’t an idiot like Comfort. He has a real PhD in mathematics. But this also is a man who, after intelligent design failed in the courts, was reduced to teaching apologetics at a second rate seminary while giving course credit to students for trolling pro-evolution websites. I can’t see C.S. Lewis doing that. Moreover, Dembski’s writing ability resembles that of a 7th grader trying to sound like he’s really bright and well read. I should know. I used to write like Dembski when I was in 7th grade. Demsbki also seems to spend most of his time fighting with other Christians. (He really, really doesn’t like theistic evolution.)
Does Alister McGrath stack up to C. S. Lewis? Now we are getting closer. McGrath is a respected theologian who also has a degree in biophysics. He’s bright. He’s willing to accept both science and religion. He has on occasion made cogent arguments. But there are two problems: First, he’s a dreadfully boring writer. I have trouble staying awake when I read anything he writes. Someone needs to get Ben Stein to do a book on tape of one of McGrath’s books. It would be the ultimate sleep aid. Or maybe it would be a weapon of mass destruction as just playing it nearby would cause individuals within a hundred mile radius to fall into irreversible comas. This brings us to the other issue with McGrath: The subjects and titles of his books are equally dreadful. His two most well known books are "The Dawkins Delusion?" and "Dawkins' God." Ok, Alister. We get the point. You don’t like Richard Dawkins.
So why are there no great apologists for Christianity today? Here are four possible explanations:
First, perhaps great apologists are simply rare and C.S. Lewis is a great outlier. This isn’t a satisfactory explanation. I could compare the modern stock of apologists with G. K. Chesterton and they would still not match up.
A second argument is that Christianity is not the common belief among intellectuals that it was fifty or sixty years ago. Since a smaller fraction of intellectuals today are deeply Christian and since apologetics is valued less today as it has been in the past, intellectuals are much less likely to go into apologetics.
Third, the state of the evidence has changed over time to make belief in Christianity less probable. This argument is almost certainly wrong. The major modern controversies implicating Christianity and Judeo-Christian religions in general have existed for a very long time. The Documentary Hypothesis and similar theories about other Biblical texts have been around for more than a century. So has evolution. Thus, the need to address these issues (either by reconciling Christianity with them, or by refuting them) has existed for a long time.
Fourth, the modern focus of apologetics has been the watchmaker analogy and variations thereof. The watchmaker analogy is an argument for the existence of God based on an analogy to a watch found in the desert which one would immediately realize had a designer. It is no coincidence that the three apologists listed above, all have arguments that revolve around the watchmaker. Ray Comfort uses a particularly stupid form of the watchmaker argument. William Dembski uses a particularly obfuscated form of the watchmaker argument. And Alister McGrath doesn’t really use the argument itself but rather spends most of his time arguing that Richard Dawkins hasn’t sufficiently refuted the watchmaker argument and that if Dawkins is fallible God must then exist.
This focus is understandable: The watchmaker argument and other teleological arguments for the existence of God are some of the hardest to refute. However, the focus of all contemporary apologetics on a single argument has left the industry stagnant and uncreative. In such circumstances, it isn’t surprising that apologetics fails to attract many intellectuals. Moreover, the focus on the watchmaker argument has caused much of modern apologetics (and thus many of modern apologists) to go head to head with much well-established science. C. S. Lewis in contrast was open to the possibility that evolution was correct. If the entire apologetic system revolves around attacking basic science, one shouldn't be surprised that not many bright, educated people are willing to lead it.
I’m not completely satisfied with any of these explanations. However, the decline of contemporary Christian apologetics needs explanation.
Lewis is far from perfect. Lewis gave birth to one of the most annoying apologetic arguments, the Trilemma. However, even there his intelligence and originality shine through. I have not seen any contemporary apologist produce any argument that isn’t a tired repackaging of pre-existing arguments.
Who are the major apologists today? There really aren’t any in the influential way that Lewis was. But if one had to identify those who today continue the tradition of Christian apologetics, one would probably list Ray Comfort, William Demsbki, and Alister McGrath.
Do any of these people measure up to C. S. Lewis? No. Consider these writers individually:
Does Ray Comfort stack up to Lewis? No way. Ray Comfort is an idiot and an ignoramus. He’s the man who most famously tried to claim that the modern shape of the banana was evidence for a divine creator. Yes, the banana, a fruit that has been heavily modified by extensive breeding by humans, a fruit whose wild form is a nasty hard thing full of seeds.
Does William Dembski stack up to Lewis? Wililam Dembski isn’t an idiot like Comfort. He has a real PhD in mathematics. But this also is a man who, after intelligent design failed in the courts, was reduced to teaching apologetics at a second rate seminary while giving course credit to students for trolling pro-evolution websites. I can’t see C.S. Lewis doing that. Moreover, Dembski’s writing ability resembles that of a 7th grader trying to sound like he’s really bright and well read. I should know. I used to write like Dembski when I was in 7th grade. Demsbki also seems to spend most of his time fighting with other Christians. (He really, really doesn’t like theistic evolution.)
Does Alister McGrath stack up to C. S. Lewis? Now we are getting closer. McGrath is a respected theologian who also has a degree in biophysics. He’s bright. He’s willing to accept both science and religion. He has on occasion made cogent arguments. But there are two problems: First, he’s a dreadfully boring writer. I have trouble staying awake when I read anything he writes. Someone needs to get Ben Stein to do a book on tape of one of McGrath’s books. It would be the ultimate sleep aid. Or maybe it would be a weapon of mass destruction as just playing it nearby would cause individuals within a hundred mile radius to fall into irreversible comas. This brings us to the other issue with McGrath: The subjects and titles of his books are equally dreadful. His two most well known books are "The Dawkins Delusion?" and "Dawkins' God." Ok, Alister. We get the point. You don’t like Richard Dawkins.
So why are there no great apologists for Christianity today? Here are four possible explanations:
First, perhaps great apologists are simply rare and C.S. Lewis is a great outlier. This isn’t a satisfactory explanation. I could compare the modern stock of apologists with G. K. Chesterton and they would still not match up.
A second argument is that Christianity is not the common belief among intellectuals that it was fifty or sixty years ago. Since a smaller fraction of intellectuals today are deeply Christian and since apologetics is valued less today as it has been in the past, intellectuals are much less likely to go into apologetics.
Third, the state of the evidence has changed over time to make belief in Christianity less probable. This argument is almost certainly wrong. The major modern controversies implicating Christianity and Judeo-Christian religions in general have existed for a very long time. The Documentary Hypothesis and similar theories about other Biblical texts have been around for more than a century. So has evolution. Thus, the need to address these issues (either by reconciling Christianity with them, or by refuting them) has existed for a long time.
Fourth, the modern focus of apologetics has been the watchmaker analogy and variations thereof. The watchmaker analogy is an argument for the existence of God based on an analogy to a watch found in the desert which one would immediately realize had a designer. It is no coincidence that the three apologists listed above, all have arguments that revolve around the watchmaker. Ray Comfort uses a particularly stupid form of the watchmaker argument. William Dembski uses a particularly obfuscated form of the watchmaker argument. And Alister McGrath doesn’t really use the argument itself but rather spends most of his time arguing that Richard Dawkins hasn’t sufficiently refuted the watchmaker argument and that if Dawkins is fallible God must then exist.
This focus is understandable: The watchmaker argument and other teleological arguments for the existence of God are some of the hardest to refute. However, the focus of all contemporary apologetics on a single argument has left the industry stagnant and uncreative. In such circumstances, it isn’t surprising that apologetics fails to attract many intellectuals. Moreover, the focus on the watchmaker argument has caused much of modern apologetics (and thus many of modern apologists) to go head to head with much well-established science. C. S. Lewis in contrast was open to the possibility that evolution was correct. If the entire apologetic system revolves around attacking basic science, one shouldn't be surprised that not many bright, educated people are willing to lead it.
I’m not completely satisfied with any of these explanations. However, the decline of contemporary Christian apologetics needs explanation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
