Just a holding post for now. Will have to digest and comment on this later, but first impression is disbelief. (I recall being unimpressed by Wolpert when I saw him in a debate a couple of years ago, must dig up the blog.)
It’s been said before, but here a Grauniad Science Blog by Moheb Costandi with a link to this full issue of The Psychologist which is devoted entirely to therapeutic psychedelics with an introduction from the now infamous David Nutt.
Powerful stuff. Part of a collection, for research purposes, naturally.
[Post Note : And nice to see Sue Blackmore still hanging in there.]
Zizek, starting with the Rotherham case, but pointing out that it is just an example – some would say political correctness – where the elephant in the room needs to be addressed for what it is. (The Ashya case too, it is quite apparent that the religious connection is being played down, not even mentioned in BBC stories, lest it be proven not relevant – damned if you do, damned if you don’t – as Michael Cashman tweeted.)
At this level, of course, we are never tolerant enough, or we are already too tolerant. The only way to break out of this deadlock is to propose and fight for a positive universal project shared by all participants.
In my own agenda: “I’m against religious fundamentalism, because I’m against fundamentalism of any kind, including scientific (scientistic) fundamentalism. I don’t define myself by what I’m against, I define myself by what I’m for. So, more specific than mere “tolerance” is respect … “
I came to be reading Thomas Nagel’s Mind & Cosmos. because I came across this review, which was itself a balanced comparative review of Nagel alongside Max Tegmark’s mathematical take on reality, but it was clear Nagel had ruffled a few orthodox scientific feathers with his heretical ideas. Coincidentally when I ordered Mind and Cosmos I’d already obtained and started reading Sheldrake’s Science Set Free. So many feathers ruffled there that Sheldrake (a real scientist) is practically an outcast from the orthodox house of science, for making too many “supernatural” topics valid game for scientific enquiry. Nagel on the other hand is a philosopher, so all too easily dismissed by hard-core scientists to start with.
Since picking up on Nagel for his universally referenced “What’s it like to be a bat?” and his “View From Nowhere” I’d never really thought of him beyond his “what’s it like to be …” alternate take on Chalmers’ “hard problem” of consciousness – explaining the subjective experience, so it was a great pleasure to get acquainted with more than a single paper of his.
Mind and Cosmos is very carefully written, painfully avoiding too-inflated claims for alternatives, but nailing the failings of overly-reductionist physicalist scientism. Painful because his arguments so carefully pick-off one aspect of each topic at a time, comparing each with distinct alternatives, and commenting on the quality of potential arguments rather than necessarily coming to firm conclusions. For that reason alone, anyone interested in getting to grips with what is wrong with scientific reductionism, starting with perhaps a nagging belief only, will find his arguments valuable. A couple of chapters – particularly the one around cognition and its evolution – are so painstakingly argued that the subtleties are hard to follow, but I wouldn’t be put off by that. The writing itself is beautifully simple.
Without too strongly recommending his preferred candidate alternate model to reductionist materialism, Mind and Cosmos is a plea that alternatives are seriously considered by scientific researchers. In that sense he is strongly aligned with Sheldrake. Also like Sheldrake the alternatives are “kinda” panpsychic. Proto-concsiousness being at least part of the fundamental elements of the cosmos – a neutral monism of neither mind nor matter exclusively, though mind more primarily than matter if forced to back one side. Unlike Sheldrake, Nagel doesn’t nail his colours to any particular mast, theist or otherwise.
I do not find theism any more credible than materialism as a comprehensive worldview.
Nagel is opposed to reductionism – everything explainable both functionally and historically from their parts, but is not wedded to emergence either. Personally I can still use emergence, nevertheless with Nagel’s reminder of two-way causation from pattern to parts as well as the orthodox conception of efficient cause.
A key aspect of Nagel’s line of argument is always to compare intentional reasons, and teleological reasons with reductionist / constructionist approach of orthodox scientism. Not simply – that’s just the way it is or the laws of nature couldn’t be any other way and the results are the “chance” causal outcome of the component level constraints and laws only. His arguments dispense with any strong need for the intentional – the intentional designs of an intelligent mind – but the teleological – the causally directed effects of patterns on the parts, creating propensities and tendencies towards patterns in the outcomes (but not specific outcomes or “goals”) – remains very much part of his possible, plausible mode.
“These teleological speculations are offered merely as possibilities, without positive conviction.”
Yeah, right. One thing Nagel doesn’t buy from orthodox science is arguments of something from nothing, not the literally anything from literally nothing – which any philosopher recognises is a metaphysical question anyway – but the conveniently complex from the presumed simple. No “life from chemistry” any more than intelligence from cosmos or cosmos from quarks without his injection of teleology and his neutral monist foundations. Here he is of course pretty controversial, but his arguments suggest he’s at least as much chance of being right as the reductionists. [Here a recent reference that suggests emergence (of bio molecules from simple chemistry) isn't so far-fetched.]
The concept of “value” looms large, particularly “pre-reflective impressions of value” and “pre-rational data” (very much “radical empiricism” a la James) and a great part of Nagel’s evolutionary arguments acknowledge Sharon Street’s “A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value” Philosophical Studies 127 Jan 2006. That seems to become essential reading. [Not fully read yet, but she references Gould & Lewontin (1979) without referencing any 21st century Dennett - sigh.]
Overall – very impressed with Nagel’s latest and believe it could be a very important piece of work. Certainly orthodox scientists needn’t run away screaming. They should take up Nagel’s careful arguments and proposals for what they are, and see what difference they make to existing explanations. A recommended read.
Mentioned upfront that Nagel had been rejected by orthodox science - even Dennett, though I must dig up the context. As I said painfully inconclusive arguments, relying on philosophical questioning and only a couple of main sources. This review is pretty balanced in reviewing his critics as well as Nagel's own case. "Non-committal" is the tactical criticism. I think he deliberately avoids scientific support in his brief book - satisfied that his job is the philosophy, to point out the unanswered questions that orthodox science should consider, after all, he's not the scientist.
Despite what Jerry Coyne says he's not "anti-evolution" he's against reductionist materialist neo-Darwinism. Jerry Coyne didn't read the book of course, and his defensive agenda is the title of his blog anyway - a closed mind if ever there was one.
So far all the criticisms of Nagel seem to be ad-hominem, and few are from those that command my respect, except Dennett, as I say. This Prospect piece seems to get Nagel's message.
Other than reported statements, I can't find any critical piece by Dennett. This conference report is interesting, but don't know anything about the agenda of Andrew Ferguson in The Weekly Standard. (Most of the Dennett quotes elsewhere seem to come from this report.)
Daniel Dennett took a different view. While it is true that materialism tells us a human being is nothing more than a “moist robot”—a phrase Dennett took from a Dilbert comic—we run a risk when we let this cat, or robot, out of the bag. If we repeatedly tell folks that their sense of free will or belief in objective morality is essentially an illusion, such knowledge has the potential to undermine civilization itself, Dennett believes.
I reckon that understates Dennett's take on "greedy reductionism".]
Disappointing. No secret I find Krauss & Dawkins too simplistic (reductionist scientistic) when it comes to their idea of “rational” arguments against theists or the otherwise religious. But, having bought and viewed the DVD of The Unbelievers, I was baffled how little content there was in this fairly short documentary film, and what content there is, is mostly already public in various clips. Nothing I hadn’t already heard either of them say before.
Lots of wistful shots of them travelling to and talking about the various speaking engagements, and sitting around airports, hotels and studios – very brief snips of the actual talks / debates / interviews, and as I say little of that unseen before.
The one thing that stuck in my mind, probably because it was some time since I last saw it, was Dawkins “debate” with the top Oz Catholic cleric, where Dawkins merely chuckles and ridicules him for not being too expert on practical details of evolution – confusing cousins vs parental heredity genetically speaking. Irrelevant to anything they were actually debating, but of course that’s practically the only clip you see. Highly disningenuous.
Just a big ego-trip for “The Unbelievers” the documentary itself. No content or arguments either way. We need some of the other “horsemen” to step up to more reasoned debate – Harris & Dennett say.
[Aside - saw another recent Krauss tweet, need to dig up, where he referred to others pointing out - as I have done - that arguing against something-from-nothing arguments (life and cosmos examples) on the grounds that their nothing is already something, as "nit-picking"! I have one the life examples in my Nagel post draft - upcoming.]
Interesting New Republic piece – on why democracy isn’t always the best solution for governance. It’s dogma to ram it down everyone else’s throats. (More later). Hat tip to David Morey on FB.
Interesting piece by Samira Ahmed, actually a summary of one of the sessions at WHC2014 I referred to here, but primarily making the plea against the misguided aggressive atheist stance that moderate religious expression should be attacked just as hard for simply being “cover” for barbaric fundamentalist forms.
Politics and management of the complex depend on levels of hypocrisy, and knowing who your allies are in any given battle is rational common sense. Mustn’t confuse values, aims, policies, strategies and tactics, they’re all quite distinct.
And it’s not simply a matter of Machiavellian cunning, cynical pragmatism or Sun-Tzu / Clausewitz on campaigns of war, it’s about working with your (potential) allies to uncover valuable common ground – you both learn and win friends. Doing something constructive rather than lazily invoking your knee-jerk “right” to criticise.
As I said at the time:
Tactical Aggression – [rather than] - the old misguided idea that benign expressions of religion are merely cover for militant and inhuman kinds and therefore to be challenged as aggressively as any.
Simplistic Equals Wrong - Guardian piece by Ian Birrell on responses to Foley’s brutal murder.
Just a riff of connected thoughts arising. That article is dead right – we need to maintain consistent foreign policy, and that’s complicated with the sway of political terms and public opinion in “the west”.
The recent history of the Gulf / Iraq / Afghanistan wars, followed by those arising from the Arab Spring, like Libya, meant that by the time Syria came along we’d lost appetite for considered intervention. “No boots on the ground” or “no military force” became a dogma rather than a considered conclusion based on long-term policies. So now that Israel Palestine reignites, Ukraine / Russia and Syria becomes ISIS in Syria and Iraq our foreign policy is on the back foot. (Made worse in the UK by discontinuity in the FO itself and divisive diversions of UK / Scotland and UK / EU, rather than strengthening of international collaborations.)
These conflicts are all connected, and connected on many levels and issues. If we don’t follow policy that actually reflects them all – their continuity and all their complexity – we have little hope of achieving stable positive outcomes. Into the vacuum flows simplistic “Islamic Caliphate for Dummies” – brutal, evil, wrong. We can do better.
(I say “the west” but of course the other Arab nations and much more also need to align concensus long-term policies more honestly rather than short-term opportunistic stances.)
I attended the “Particle Physics Evening” Hosted by Jon Butterworth (of Smashing Physics fame) at University College London yesterday evening. Altogether, including two streaming in from CERN, there were 7 speakers and reasonably lively Q&A with the 250ish audience, so I came away thinking I’d learned a bit.
[Post Note: I should add this public meeting was a part of the gathering of particle physicists at UCL for BOOST2014]
Given the more general title as advertised, I was expecting something like – forget the press banging on about Higgs, here’s the interesting stuff – but in fact the focus of this team, and hence the talk, was almost entirely on Higgs. The multiple correlation by multiple different test teams using different LHC experiments and technologies to detect Higgs-predicted multiple decay patterns meant a very high level of certainty that the new particle “discovered” was the real 126GeV mass particle predicted for Higgs. Their use of the D-word indicated this very high level of statistical certainty. They admitted that as well as planning new objectives for research when LHC restarts next year at its near doubled 14TeV capacity, there were plenty of things they still needed to test and confirm about the Higgs itself besides its mass and predicted decay patterns, and still masses (excuse the pun) of existing data to analyse before LHC restarts.
What struck me was that the “standard model” being talked about – for which the Higgs provided the missing piece – is really only “complete” for unifying Electro-Weak forces. Still nothing said about strong forces or even gravity, despite mass being the point of the Higgs interest, and therefore still less said about possible dark-matter and dark-energies and gravitational interactions between these masses. The cosmological model is far from complete, even with Higgs.
Someone did ask the question I’ve expressed many times. How logically can finding a massive particle explain why other particles have mass? The answer threw up another item I’d not recognised previously. Higg’s only explains the asymmetry of mass between the otherwise “identical” particle triplets, and it only explains how they came to acquire their different masses during the evolution of the universe, masses which no longer depend on any ongoing interactions with Higgs. Nowadays Higgs only exist in certain extreme conditions with extremely short decay life otherwise. This is the kind of explanation that depends on such a fine-tuned timing in the early post-big-bang universe, that the sceptic in me still finds it pretty far fetched. What they’re really establishing is internal consistency of their incomplete model.
Given the recognition that the standard EW model (completed by Higgs) was far from a complete cosmological model, what might exist beyond it came up only in the last throwaway remark of Jon’s closing comments. SuperSymmetry – a whole set of mirror equivalents of the standard model with complementary properties and much much higher masses. The same again and much more is still missing from the postulated model.
I did ask Jon afterwards (given the previous post) did he see anything in supersymmetry – or whatever lay beyond – that could yet unravel the standard EW model? Initially he said no, without being specific all the remaining gaps looked like things that should be confirmed and refined, but admitted that until they were (confirmed and detailed) technically it maybe could unravel. Supersymmetry was only one of the hypotheses for what lay beyond, though many of the others were as he put it, more philosophical than physical. Well said and very significant.
Two other interesting topics:
The whole question of data collection and data analysis - the algorithms used to select “interesting” data sets (few hundred per second) from the background noise (millions per second). Surely observer bias in the algorithms must skew the findings? David Miller’s role in this team was to address exactly that – ensuring sampling of the noise as well as the “interesting” signals checked they weren’t discarding significant sets. The sceptic in me again says, that since it’s patterns we’re really looking for – not standalone indications – that the results are still hugely at risk to this process. Hmmm.
And finally, meta, but maybe the most significant point: One thing I’ve been looking at creating is a forum based on moderated wisdom of real people with respect for each other, as opposed to the troll-addled offense-by-ridicule polarised threads of comments and social media. Well that was pretty much exactly how Jay Wacker described Quora. Wikipedia is great for non-contentious facts, as I’ve said many times, but Quora was set up to be a respect-mediated way to collect informed-wisdom. Excellent initiative, and a lesson to those “humanist” forums and threads that this initiative on wise opinion came from “real” geeky physicists, who clearly understand the reality of life more than either scientistic-atheist-humanists or religious-fundamentalists. Very interesting – I shall try it out and see how it works.
Interesting pair of papers, one from this week, and one from Nov 2012, on the “failure” of the Large Hadron Collider work to find any evidence of “supersymmetry” particles to support the standard model, and the idea that mass is not a particle property, and so maybe even the Higgs field / boson is a myth. No, really? It’s been said here before.
The best thing about this is the suggestion that maybe the “wrong turn” in particle physics was taken quite some time ago, several decades, so rather than fiddling with and knocking corners off existing theories, more radical new hypotheses really are needed. The latest paper is suggesting mass and length are not even real, and that falling back on (parallel) multiverses as a reason why we find the particular properties we do in this universe, is simply not satisfactory as any kind of explanation. And a lot more. Fascinating reads.
Mass was of course a fudge ever since Newton introduced it to explain inertial resistance to acceleration; Boscovich and Mach (and hence Einstein) recognised this of course. For a true physicalist model, dynamics are much more primary than anything like matter is to a materialist. So many other possibilities if we escape the materialist dogma.
Much too hard for any lay / amateur like myself to understand all the scientific (mathematical) arguments, but the all too human quotes of the practitioners are very illuminating. Disappointment and failure. No more jobs in particle physics, time to find work in neuroscience, etc. LOL.
What is also good about the two Simons Foundation source papers is that the comment threads are not hysterically polarised attack and defence. Several pointing out that “failure” is not the right way to look at scientific progress – unless you were involved in big-science funding justifications maybe – fair enough, but most finding the reports though-provoking and joining the dots with other sources of ideas. Progress.
[Hat tip to David Morey on Facebook for the links.]
Rupert Sheldrake’s “The Science Delusion” (2012) so-called by his publisher as a pointed response to Dawkins, is called “Science Set Free” in the US. Given my agenda – alternatives to logical-positivist materialist-reductionist scientistic-dogma worldviews – it’s not possible for me to be ignorant of Sheldrake, but I’m pretty sure I’ve not read anything of his until his 2012 book. Certainly not his seminal “New Science of Life – The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance” (1981).
The 2012 book seems to summarise his previous work, and although it covers the whole range of his ideas on alternative medicine, telepathy and the “paranormal”, his main agenda is to point out dogmatic arrogant dismissive politically distorting aspects of the modern science enterprise – hear, hear. He may never recover from some of his ideas being too whacky – too new-agey – for orthodox science to take seriously, but there are attractive aspects of his morphic resonance hypothesis for the open-minded.
Much evidence for consciousness and memory as something like pan-psychism, extending beyond the physical structures of any one brain – like I heard Iain McGilchrist say recently, better to think of highly-evolved brains as the best “transducers” of consciousness, rather than its source or physical location. Similarly some of the complex behaviours of simple organisms (like Alan Rayner and his funghi) cannot just be reduced to properties of their physical structures. Also much evidence that the Cosmological Anthropic Principle casts doubt on the accepted standard model(s) and ideas of downward as well as upward causation and “natural” lines of evolution.
All the so-called “paranormal” stuff he has, like Sue Blackmore, taken seriously as a research topic for some time. Some interesting ideas about problems researching anything telepathic “under laboratory conditions” and anything like double-blind arrangements where researcher’s biases are not in play. But as he points out these problems beset much “big science” and business motivated medical science too. He actually uses several Ben Goldacre quotes positively, when I can imagine “Bad Science” easily taking a pop at Sheldrake.
I also happen to believe materialist-as-physicalist philosophy with “emergence” of patterns upon patterns of fit consistent with Sheldrake’s morphic resonance, wouldn’t cause Dennett as much problem as Sheldrake assumes on the appearances of intention and creative purpose [ref needed] . Be interesting to hear the two together.
I’ve said before when arguing against orthodoxy it’s possible to be “too open minded” and leave yourself open to criticism based on ridicule, but for an open mind Sheldrake does cover a lot of worthwhile ground.
[Post Note: Final conclusions reading The Science Delusion are that Sheldrake sounds frustrated and tired delivering a message he's clearly been banging on about for a long time. His core point - that materialist reductionist science has become dogmatic and closed minded, and that society is becoming dangerously distorted by its dominance - is surely true. But the examples of alternatives he cites are too many, too personally "cause-celebre" and maybe insufficiently coherently argued to create change in themselves. I should add, I've now moved on to reading Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos" - an atheist version of the same agenda it seems.]
Interesting. Not sure it says much about the religion vs science debate, but it does say a lot about effective styles of interaction. If you go in “taking the piss” and showing your audience no respect, I’m not sure you can expect your audience to show any respect to you or what you might have to say. A sad case. (Sue needs to take a lesson from Dan Dennett, below.)
Sadly, I thought Sue had already changed her mind away from Religions as Viruses of the Mind. Sure there is a lot of memetics in how and why religions (and any beliefs) catch-on and spread, but trivialising it with crass reductionist examples helps no-one.
No-one has the right not to be offended.
But that gives no-one the right to offend and ridicule as their main thrust.
Dennett – in Intution Pumps (and earlier works). He credits these as Rappaport’s rules, but this is the version Dennett presents : How to compose a successful critical commentary:
You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
These first three rules I call elsewhere: “Respect, respect & respect”.
[Post Note: Here endeth the lesson.]
Interesting piece because of the suggestion this affects its advertisers, but a large number of twitter users are “bots”.
But by its definition, I’m a bot.
The reason I like Twitter compared to that other useless piece of social media, is precisely because it’s a “channel” whose UI I can avoid using at all costs. Everything I post to or read from Twitter I do as a human, but the feeds are automated from other UI’s. This blog for one thing, outbound posts and with embedded readers on other pages, and more recently Tweetdeck both in and outbound and other WordPress plug-ins. So yes “promoted” tweets sometimes make it into the inbound channel as well as the humanly “followed” tweets. But I can dismiss these. There are no other UI widgets trying to second guess what commercial or “sex” driven content to put in front of my eyes, alongside the user content on my desktop.
Twitter is great because it’s a channel without inherent content.
Please make your business model out of that fact.
After the “Relaxed About Theology” post, I largely drafted this one in response to another twitter exchange involving a tweeter who clearly wasn’t at all relaxed about the religious connections between the Sheldonian and the recent World Humanist Congress (#WHC2014) held there. Having drafted it I decided not to post it, since although he had a point his aggressive motive wasn’t clear, and no-one from BHA or other humanist organisation seemed to have engaged. So maybe better let sleeping trolls lie. Well I discover today BHA did engage – totally defensively and dismissively, so I feel moved to share my view:
@getyourshare1 was making the point that the Sheldonian as a “religious” building was not appropriate as a humanist venue. Of course troll-style, he was making his point with emotive terms like “hypocrites”, “betrayal”, etc. and making claims that were exaggerating what may (or may not) have been partly true. My initial tweeted response was that 1000 humanists taking over the (ex-religious) asylum had a certain delicious irony to it. But, he responded suggesting the church may have made rent out of the event at the expense of humanism. After one attempt to put a positive spin on it – “OK if that were true, what would you suggest we do about it” (other than hurl abuse)? But the hint wasn’t taken, so I shut up – Monday I think.
Anyway, it seems BHA have as recently as today simply been denying and dismissing his claims. My take is this:
The Church(es) are massive landowners in the UK. The major ancient universities were to a great extent founded by the churches, and as well as having that heritage, if Oxford is anything like Cambridge and Durham, we can be sure the churches still own a great deal of the property with ground rents and covenants and the like where the whole buildings are no longer owned. No doubt the concerns that run the academic institutions as businesses and charities have quite complex relations to their landlords, so whilst the Sheldonian is not “owned” by the church, or any hiring rents paid directly to the church, I wouldn’t be surprised if the church did benefit indirectly to some extent. (Tried to research that out of interest, but very difficult to bottom out the detail.)
What is undeniable however, is that the Sheldonian has religious heritage and a “congregational” layout, not to mention the organ and other religious artefacts, symbols and mottos all over it. Denied by the BHA.
The congregational element of humanism’s congress, and indeed of its Sunday “assemblies”, was one of the features that led Andrew Brown to point out similarities between humanism and a religion. Denied and indeed attacked with ridiculing and dismissive rhetoric by the BHA members.
Clearly not everyone in humanism is Relaxed About Theology, but the worry is that so many voices associated with humanism feel the need to attack or deny it every time some point of contact arises, rather than engage in reasonable dialogue.
[Links to all the twitter tags, handles and tweets deliberately omitted here, anyone following who has interest in reasonable dialogue knows how to make contact. Stoking trolls in 140 character sound bites is not reasonable dialogue.]
[Post Note : a particularly "shrill" denial of any case comparing humanism to religion, as a response to the Andrew Brown piece, posted at almost exactly the same time as this post.]
Sad to hear, but have to agree – wanted to give the artist Imogen Heap a chance – but this review says what I’ve been feeling about her recently.
I first came across her in Jeff Beck’s Ronnie Scott event with Eric Clapton and Tal Wilkenfeld. Some real magic delivery of both a blues-rock standard and one of her own numbers with this stellar “backing band”.
Saw her live with her own “friends” on a tour (in Oslo) 3 or 4 years ago, and found it very self-indulgent, having jolly good fun with whacky musical ideas and instruments – but sorry, not really delivering much entertainment or “soul” to an audience. Maintained an interest – because after all, quality will out – and followed her recent tweets to her self-made promo-videos, and oh dear – none too promising musically. Didn’t write a detailed review, assuming maybe this was a project in progress that needed some space to develop.
It’s like Clive James says – it don’t mean a thing if it ain’t got that swing – you can take the creative improv too far. The opening para of Grauniad review by Rebecca Nicholson of the album “Sparks” therefore comes as no surprise:
Imogen Heap‘s fourth record is less a coherent album than a collection of crowdsourced collaborations, generated through methods and techniques that include a running app and a pair of gloves that turns the wearer’s body into a human harp. Sparks was written in a community garden in Hangzhou, China, and in the Himalayas in Bhutan. There’s a song called The Listening Chair that will never be finished, with Heap promising to add a new verse every seven years. If you uploaded images of your footprints to her website, you’ll find them reproduced on the cover. (As fan interaction goes, it’s definitely one up on a T-shirt.) Musically, Sparks is a bit of a mess.
You don’t want to kick a girl when she’s down, but take note Imogen, we know you can do it.
[Post Note : rewatching that could'a had religion / rollin' and tumbin' with Jeff Beck - happier times, and Tal's expression and body language within seconds of Imogen opening her mouth says it all. But do watch Blanket too.]
I’ve often used examples of football events and stories as parables for morality in life in general – if I’d tagged them more carefully you could find them; I’ll dig up a few examples. Anyway, today a great piece by Mark Kettle in the Grauniad, that frankly I could have written myself. Football has got too big for its fancy-coloured boots.
The whole stupid, stretching 10-month juggernaut of Premier League excess is about to grind back into action this weekend – a return that’s about as welcome as a drunk on the late bus home.
Don’t get this wrong. I like football. I always have. I watch a lot of games. I always did. I still have my season ticket and, though I regularly think about giving it up and putting the money to other uses, I’ll be back in the stands again this year too. But without real enthusiasm, at least until the weather gets colder, wetter and darker – when the real football weather begins. The truth is that football is just way too big for its fancy-coloured boots …
The charge sheet against modern football is not difficult to draw up. Too much money. Too many mercenaries. Too little motivation. Too few roots. Not enough skill or nurture. No moral compass.
Still, I guess the counter-example to day is that thankfully, the football arbitrators have upheld Suarez long ban for his (third) biting offence.
Letter in the Telegraph with an interesting list of signatories from the clergy and atheists of many colours. Hat tip to BHA for sharing.
As usual the letter is considered and eminently sensible, if necessarily thin on detail given the broad agreement, but the comment thread is mostly the knee-jerk critics conflating every religious issue they can think of, with a few hopeful people trying to point out the error of their views. Voted a few comments up and down, but didn’t dive into this one, so a few thoughts here:
This is basically a question of secularism.
I don’t believe any “faith-based” schools should be government supported at all. They should simply meet standards for national curricula. Faith-based schools, and indeed all forms of private schooling, raise many issues but this is not what the letter is about.
Faith-based or not-faith-based curricula should include RE “about” religion generally. This is what the letter is about – what that “RE” standard should be – according to national and global standards. The main point – it seems long overdue to recognise that the curriculum should not be tied to the official Anglican religion - “established” religion practically in symbolic name only and important primarily from a national (and international) cultural heritage standpoint. Even the Anglican church itself sees the error in being formally “established”.
The encouraging thing in the letter apart from it’s breadth of support is the implication that theology – understanding what belief means or “the place of religion & belief” – is the core of the agenda, not just some PC value-free cultural history of a balanced selection of specific religions, valuable though these also are.
I hope those signatories that are the formal voices of atheism and humanism ( eg @andrewcopson ) will be open to dialogue about what makes a good belief system, whilst no-doubt rejecting “religious” and “faith-based” labels themselves. Even belief systems wedded to their own definitions of rationality find they need some declared “credo” or basis of values, wherever these come from. They’d need to shed all such declared values if they wanted to reject even the tag “belief system”.
[Post Note : And as I said the key issue is secularism - disestablishment. The above is one aspect of getting our own UK house in order, but this is main issue in so many religious problems around the world. Hat tip to Secularism UK for reminding us of the Boko Haram example - I'm sure you can think of many more.]
‘Tis. ‘Tisn’t. ‘Tis. ‘Tisn’t …. One reason the left / right brain myth persists is because there is of course some truth to it. The problem is the simplistication of reality leading to the wrong myth, one that’s fairly easy to “debunk” as people often do, but one reason the left / right brain myth persists is ….
Some Common Facts …. Sure enough, calling people left-brained or right-brained is just a label for the balance between real thinking-behavioural traits – the wrong part of the myth is that it’s because we predominantly “use” that half of the brain in the label. We use pretty much all of our brain in most “left-brained” or “right-brained” tasks as any neural correlate scans will show (and do show). And of course the brain is tremendously plastic in terms of both development and repair of different physical sites for functional processing – different things can and do happen in multiple places in both halves anyway. OK so that’s debunked the myth that right and left brained people USE predominantly different halves of their brains. Job done ? Well, no.
But There’s More …. Whilst using both halves, the communication between the two halves and the sum-total of the processing that is elevated into our immediate consciousness is controlled (permissively) by the corpus-callosum – it’s practically the only structure that physically connects the otherwise entirely divided halves of our brain. We couldn’t “know” what our brain is telling us without this connection and its connection to our wider nervous and somatic systems. Whatever we think our mind is, it is surely illogical not to recognise that it must involve the integration of all our brain resources. No?
So The Reality Is … What is really being captured in the left/right brain labelling is the relative dominance of the different processing tasks and styles happening in the two halves making it into the integrated whole picture our consciousness picks up through that split-but-connected architecture. The processing happening in the two brain hemispheres provides the whole mind with different views or perspectives. In the same way that there are neural correlate scans that debunk the idea that processing itself is happening in one half more than the other, there are scans of accidental and deliberate lesions affecting the halves and the connecting structures that correlate the lost connectivity to functionality with the thinking-behaviour traits. That is NOT a myth, it’s the true part of the more generally misunderstood myth.
I’ll Need Some Evidence …. All of the above is my paraphrase of what I’ve learned mainly from Iain McGilchrist – and in fact he has a very accessible 15 minute animated lecture that says all of the above much more eloquently than I. If you care enough to argue further about it, then please do also read his deeply referenced work for all the empirical scientific support. The Master and His Emissary is the book for popular science reading, but that doesn’t mean the papers and scientific texts don’t also exist. Don’t dismiss. Do the research. Follow the references.
Let vs right-brained-ness is NOT a myth.
It’s not WHICH halves of the brain are functioning.
It’s HOW the two halves are connected in the conscious mind.
Apparently the teaching of Sanskrit is controversial in India because of its association with Hinduism, but as the article notes much ancient Sanskrit literature is non-religious anyway.
Part of the Indo-Aryan language group and indeed phonetically rooted in Proto-Indo-European language, it is the root of many. But it’s not a living language, so I can’t imagine anyone is suggesting its a language everyone should be taught to read, write and speak. It’s a bit like classical Greek and Latin in the English-speaking context. Everyone should be taught something about it, and some should be encouraged to study it for what it is. A “Sanskrit Week” celebration sounds reasonable?
Religion without a church? Humanism almost qualifies - writes Andrew Brown in the Grauniad. After comparing WHC2104 to a religious event, which is not difficult, and the likely reaction to such labelling, he concludes with:
… there are some humanists who take dialogue seriously. I talked to Babu Goginieni, now the international director of the movement, who was relaxed about theology: “The enemies of humanism are not only on the religious side,” he said. “I think the government has no business taking up any side. Atheism is not important. I happen to be an atheist, but that’s not the point – what is important is freedom and human values, and a way of living with others and with nature. Once we have concluded there is no God, we move on.”
I actually believe it’s a good piece that should lead BHA and international humanism generally to think about its real constitution. I made my comments in the thread:
The Babu Goginieni quote is well chosen. As a humanist I’m atheist too, but I’m not defined by my atheism, just am non-theist.
One correction – humanism is not defined by humanity being sacred – it’s reality that’s sacred. We humanists recognise human responsibilities to the whole alongside our rights and freedoms.
On the “being a religion” angle – sure any group develops social cohesion, through shared behaviours, but I think a key aspect of humanism (besides its inevitable universalism) is that its prefers to couch its “lore” as values supporting action, rather than as specific rules. But we’re really only having this discussion as you say, because the “religion” brand has become toxic to all “rationalists”.
[Typically - and meta - the comment thread is full of ad-hominem and "aggressive" comments denying and ridiculing Brown and his piece. Humanism needs to get a grip on this kind of twisted conception of freedom of speech even appearing to be done in its name. It's been said before but unmediated comment threads are on their way out.]
[I made my own summary of WHC2014 here.]
[Post Note : Brown's point in quoting Babu Goginieni is specifically "humanists who take dialogue seriously". One comment in the thread that arrived after mine became favourited on twitter as "nailing" the argument.
— Andrew Copson (@andrewcopson) August 13, 2014
But I still beg to differ - made my own comment:
Hmm, witty rhetoric about calling a spade a shovel when it comes to suggesting humanism is (like) a religion. But Babu Goginieni's point was about theism. Brown is not suggesting humanists are theists, he's simply suggesting humanism is (like) a religion (not necessarily one that believes in god).
Bit disingenuous to imply theism and religion are the same.
The Brown piece is an offer of dialogue at the interface between humanism and religion(s) of which BHA should take note. Benjamin O'Donnell's comment aligns with mine (and includes interesting rant against Rod Liddle - another story).]