Alain de Botton’s TEDTalk: Atheism 2.0

In a recent TEDTalk, Alain de Botton argues convincingly that atheism has much to gain by adopting forms and traditions of religion that satisfy our need as humans for morality, guidance, consolation, community, institutions and ritual. He refers to this new “religion for atheists” as Atheism 2.0.

It’s an excellent talk and I’m in general agreement with de Botton. But he makes a common mistake of framing the conversation as one about religion and atheism (as Erin Anderssen did recently in an article in the Globe and Mail). Instead, we should be talking about Humanism 2.0, not Atheism 2.0. The latter is a world-view based on a non-belief, whereas the former is a world-view based on positive values. (This is why I identify as a humanist and not an atheist.) When framed this way, we see that humanism does indeed provide us with of what we look for in religion, including morality, guidance, consolation and, I would argue, our sense of “something bigger.”

At the same time, a great challenge remains for humanism: it doesn’t provide us with all that we look for in religion, for example community, institutions and rituals. I do not gather with other humanists on a weekly basis to meditate upon our common worldview. I do not perform humanist rituals, nor celebrate any humanist holidays, nor sing any humanist “hymns.” There are no humanist picnics, choirs, yard sales, holiday concerts, etc. to attend with my fellow free-thinkers. What would I hang on my wall or around my neck to identify me as a humanist and signify the bond I have with my kindred spirits?

I believe there are many individuals who self-identify as “religious”, attend church, read a holy book for moral guidance, etc. but who–deep down–do not believe in a supernatural, all-powerful deity responsible for creation. They aren’t believers, but religion satisfies them in these other ways. As such, I’m reminded of the old Woody Allen joke in which a woman complains that her husband thinks he’s a chicken. When her friend asks if they’ve been to a doctor for a cure, she answers, “We would, but we need the eggs.” Many more of us would abandon religion for humanism, but we need the “eggs.”

Filed under: atheism, humanism, religion, atheism, humanism, religion

When we see sinister things that aren’t…

On November 22nd, 1963, it was bright and sunny in Dallas, as home movies and photographs taken that day clearly show. Why, then, is a dark-suited man holding an open umbrella aloft just as President Kennedy’s motorcade passes and shots are fired?

In his fascinating short film, The Umbrella Man, Errol Morris explores the question of the sinister figure with the help of Josaih “Tink” Thompson, author of Six Seconds in Dallas.

Filed under: pseudoscience, skepticism, pseudoscience, skepticism

How we know homeopathy doesn’t work

Cory Doctorow today posted the following on the always entertaining, always stimulating boingboing.net: “Homeopathy multinational sues blogger over statements that its mythological curative had no ‘active ingredient’.” The blogger is Samuele Riva; the multinational is the largest manufacturer of homeopathic products in the world, a company called Boiron, based in France.

On blogzero.it, Riva makes the claim that Boiron’s product Oscillococcinum has no active ingredient. Understandable, since the company claims the flu remedy is made with oscillococcinum, a substance that doesn’t exist; and understandable since the ingredient is supposedly diluted with a 1:100 dilution 200 times. As Steven Novella writes, that’s “the equivalent of diluting 1ml of original ingredient into a volume of water that is the size of the known universe.” No wonder it’s non-drowsy and has no side effects.

Naturally, many readers’ comments on the story on boingboing.net debunk homeopathy, focusing on the placebo effect, the results of clinical trials, the weakness of anecdotal evidence, and other familiar arguments. Here’s my comment (revised for this posting):

According to the fundamentals of homeopathy, medicines are made “by diluting the remedy and succussing (shaking) it. All homeopathic medicines are ‘potentized’, i.e. diluted and succussed. This method of preparation imparts considerable energy to each substance.” The curative power of any substance is “imprinted” on water through contact and agitation, and its effectiveness is increased by dilution.

But if this is indeed how homeopathic remedies are made, you wouldn’t need to buy Boiron’s Oscillococcinum. In fact, you shouldn’t need to buy any homeopathic remedies at all because a glass of tap water would contain the curative powers of every element and substance on the planet. After billions of years, every element, molecule, compound and substance has been in contact with water at some point, and been subsequently agitated and diluted. Rocks release chemicals into the water of a rushing river; a leaf falls into a lake; rivers pour these dilute solutions into the oceans where they are agitated and diluted even more; and on and on for billions of years.

If homeopathic fundamentals were real, every mouthful of water we drank would provide us with the curative benefit of every substance that any amount of water came in contact with—ever. Every mouthful would contain all the medicinal power of every product in Boiron’s catalog. If homeopathy worked and Boiron truly cared about our welfare, they would simply stop selling their “remedies” and encourage us all—as our mothers did—to drink more water.

Filed under: pseudoscience, science literacy, skepticism

Birthers, Deathers and the End of the World

I’m posting this on May 22^nd 2011—which means the planet was not torn asunder by an  apocalyptic earthquake yesterday and the faithful have not been called up into heaven in The Rapture.

It seems Harold Camping, the president of the American Christian radio network, Family Radio, erred in proclaiming “THE END OF THE WORLD IS ALMOST HERE! HOLY GOD WILL BRING JUDGMENT DAY ON MAY 21, 2011.” As we all now know, God didn’t bring it, despite Family Radio’s confident declaration that “The Bible Guarantees It.”

Of course, Camping isn’t the first to wrongly foretell the Apocalypse (and he won’t be the last as we’ll see in December 2012); there have been countless dooms-days before this one. In 1954, a Chicago housewife named Dorothy Martin claimed she was in communication with aliens from a planet called Clarion. According to the extraterrestrials, a great flood would bring an end to our civilization on the morning of December 21^st. But the Clarions also reassured Dorothy they would swoop down in a flying saucer at midnight on the 20^th to rescue her and other “true believers.” Needless to say, the deluge did not appear—and neither did the flying saucer.

Filed under: politics, pseudoscience, religion, skepticism

Canadian government muzzling federal scientists

The Ad Astra Science Fiction convention in Toronto might seem an odd setting for the panel discussion, “The Muzzling of Canadian Federal Scientists: Is 1984 Here?”. But, as moderator Pippa Wysong pointed out in her opening remarks, the muzzling of scientists would make a good plot line for a science fiction thriller.

Government control of federally-funded scientists is a growing concern among Canadian science journalists. In years past, the media typically would have unrestricted and immediate access to researchers. The panel, which included science journalists Wysong, Saul Chernos and Janet Pelley, and physicist David Stephenson, offered ample proof that the situation has changed in a disturbing way.

For example, Pelley described an incident at a water quality conference in 2009. Following a presentation on Bisphenol A, she asked the researchers for an interview. The scientists “laughed nervously”, told Pelley they couldn’t answer her questions, and pointed toward a “press-minder” standing nearby. Pelley asked the media officer for permission to interview the scientists but her request was denied. Instead, she was instructed to submit her request to the media office. Needless to say, Pelley didn’t get her interview that day.

Filed under: media, politics

A Gallery of Galapagos Hawks

This week, the Galapagos National Park resumed its efforts to eradicate from the islands one of the most harmful of invasive species: rats. Using poison bait, the GNP has already succeeded in ridding several islands of these pests. They have now begun releasing the bait on the island of Rabida.

While this approach works, it is not so simple a solution on islands inhabited by the endemic Galapagos hawk (Buteo galapagoensis). Rats make up part of the hawks’ diet and the predators could be critically harmed by the poison. So the GNP, in partnership with the University of Minnesota’s Raptor Center and others, has begun a capture program. The birds will be held captive during the baiting period, then released back into their island homes when it is safe. (You can follow the progress of the program on the Raptor Center blog.)

During my last two visits to the islands, I enjoyed the company of Galapagos hawks on many occasions. As with the sea lions I encountered while snorkeling and scuba diving, it’s hard not to imagine that these creatures are enjoying your company in return. From this small gallery of photographs taken on Santiago and Isabela islands, you can see why I am particularly fond of them and hope the program goes well.

An immature hawk with Sugar Loaf caldera, Isla Santiago

An immature hawk surveys the highlands, Isla Santiago

Just after sunset, Isla Santiago

On the rim of Alcedo volcano, Isla Isabela

Filed under: Galapagos

The Darwin Correspondence Project and other online Darwin resources

Just a post about some online archival resources I’ve found relating to Charles Darwin and The Origin of Species:

The first is the Darwin Correspondence Project, a fascinating website that lets you “read and search the full texts of more than 6000 of Darwin’s letters.” These include letters to and from his grandfather Eramus, Beagle captain Robert Fitzroy, Charles Lyell, T.H. Huxley, John Gould, Alfred Russell Wallace, and many others. Access to the letters is through a well-designed, interactive time-line that lets you browse through years of correspondence or search by name.

For example, in a letter to Charles Lyell, dated June 25, 1858, Darwin expresses his anguish at receiving Wallace’s manuscript describing the Welshman’s own thoughts on evolution. Can Darwin in all good conscience publish his “sketch” now that he has seen the other naturalist’s work? He writes, “I would far rather burn my whole book than that he or any man sh^d. think that I had behaved in a paltry spirit.”

Filed under: darwin, evolution, Galapagos

Why I Am Not An Atheist

In the November 26^th Munk Debate in Toronto, Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens squared off on either side of the resolution that religion is a force for good in the world. Former British Prime Minister Blair was introduced as a recently converted Roman Catholic; Hitchens, not surprisingly, as an atheist.

Of course, Hitchens is one of the better known “new atheists”, along with Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. I respect Hitchens’ work—most recently, his reasoned and humane reflections on his experience with oesophageal cancer, but also his writing on religion and atheism, in particular God is Not Great. I haven’t read much by Harris, but I have just cracked open his latest, The Moral Landscape, and look forward to it.

Of the three, I’m most familiar with Dawkins’ work. I’ve especially enjoyed his brilliant writing on evolution, but also respect his views on religion. And I admire his Out Campaign encouraging individuals to openly declare their atheism; I’ve long believed that the presence of religion in society today is all out of proportion to the actual belief (or non-belief) systems of the population and, hence, inflates religion’s influence and significance. In our national anthem, we sing “God keep our land”; during times of public calamity we are enjoined to say a prayer; newscasts cover papal visits and pronouncements as if they meant something to the majority; we mostly get married and buried, regardless of our worldviews, in the “presence” of a god; and the holiday music that has just begun to fill our airwaves and stores is often about “baby Jesus”, angels and three wise men. If atheists “came out”, we might collectively ask: why are we doing all these things?

Nevertheless, there is no “coming out” for me—because I am not an atheist.

Filed under: atheism, humanism, religion, atheism, humanism, religion

It’s Not Easy Being a Spider

Two items I recently wrote for a children’s science and nature magazine:

Assassin bug vs. Spider!

When a leaf falls into a spider’s web, the spider can tell from the vibrations it hasn’t caught an insect. But when it feels fluttering insect wings, it knows dinner has arrived. It also knows to attack quickly, before its prey escapes. And when it feels vibrations from a weak insect, the spider moves in slowly. It knows its meal isn’t going anywhere.

Now, two scientists from Australia are studying how assassin bugs catch spiders using the spider’s own web. Anne Wignall and Phillip Taylor watched as an assassin bug used its legs to pluck the threads of a web. It didn’t vibrate the web like a leaf—then the spider wouldn’t come. And it didn’t vibrate it like an escaping insect—then the spider would attack too quickly. Instead, it shook the web as if it was a small, weak insect. The spider approached slowly, making it easy for the assassin bug to grab its prey.

Wolf spider vs. Sundew!

Different species of animals compete with each other—especially when they eat the same food. This usually happens with animals that are similar, like dolphins and tuna, or lizards and snakes. But now, a scientist from Florida has discovered an animal and a plant that compete for food. David Jennings studies wolf spiders and tiny plants called sundews. The sundew feeds itself by catching insects with its sticky spines. The wolf spider catches insects with its web.

Credit: Christopher V. Anderson, Univ. of South Florida

Jennings placed sundew plants in terrariums. Next, he put wolf spiders in with some of the sundews. Then he added insects. When a sundew had to share the food supply with spiders, the plant didn’t grow as well. And in the wild, he found that wolf spiders either built bigger webs when sundews were nearby—or they built their webs farther from their spiny competitors. It was as if they knew the sundew would “steal” some of their food!

Filed under: nature

How Does Understanding Evolution Make Us Better Citizens?

On his Discover blog today, Carl Zimmer asks “…how understanding evolution allows American citizens to formulate more informed decisions about societally important matters. How does a good understanding of evolution better prepare us to make decisions as citizens?” He invited readers to submit their views. Here’s the answer I posted in reply:

It is not so much our understanding of the fact of evolution that is so important to being an informed, responsible citizen. What’s critical is our understanding of how we know that evolution is a fact. Evolution instructs us how to understand. Evolution challenges us to ask: how do we know? Do we “know” God created the millions of species on Earth because that’s what religious doctrine declares? Or do we know that species evolved from common ancestors because of the century and a half of empirical evidence that proves the idea true, and because it makes sense of and explains all we see around us.

Do we know what we know through fear, irrationality, ideology, a lack of education, or fundamentalist beliefs? Or through rationality, reason and empiricism? In this way, evolution touches issues and ideas that are important to any informed citizen. How do we know anthropogenic global warming is real? How do we determine what causes AIDS, cancer or autism? How do we know flying saucers, time-traveling cellphone-users, homeopathic cures, and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction don’t exist? We know by looking at these questions in the same way Darwin looked at the world around him.

Filed under: evolution, science literacy