Your Meditation Guide Blog

Meditation News From All Over The Web

Archive for September, 2010

Julia’s Picks

Posted by Massimo Pigliucci On September - 21 - 2010
By Julia Galef
* Does the language you speak shape the way you think? Not in the way we originally believed, but there's still more than a grain of truth to the old chestnut. New York Times magazine elaborates.

* This post does a nice job of explaining why scientists are loath to accept the Many Worlds Hypothesis, and about a deep underlying tension between Bayesian reasoning and the scientific method.

* Crows are going to take over the world.

* Ergo, the card game about logic in which you try to disprove your opponent's existence. Not sure what gameplay’s like, but I love the idea. Instructions here.

* Can it really be this hard to find a scientific rebuttal of cryonics?

* A brilliant example of presenting data viscerally: housing prices, 1890-2007, graphed as a simulated roller coaster ride.
* This is a letter which has been cut out of paper and folded once. It is not L. What is it?

Michael’s Picks

Posted by Massimo Pigliucci On September - 19 - 2010
By Michael De Dora
* Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert will hold “opposing” rallies in Washington, DC, this Oct. 30: the “Rally to Restore Sanity,” and the rally to “Keep Fear Alive.” I hope to be there.
* Another well-done article from The Onion: “God Angrily Clarifies ‘Don’t Kill’ Rule.”
* An interesting feature piece in The Wall Street Journal on a U.S. military chaplain in Afghanistan and his soldier guard – who is an atheist.
* John Shook has caused a bit of a stir in the secular community with an essay on The Huffington Post in which he asks, “How did know-nothing atheism and lazy theology grab the spotlight?”
* A five-minute clip from a recent debate I attended between Peter Singer and Dinesh D’Souza, over whether morality does, or even can, come from God.
* Former Sen. Al D’Amato (R-NY), stood up to what he called “racist bullsh*t” on a recent FOX News appearance.
* Can science tell us right from wrong? Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, Patricia Churchland, Lawrence Krauss, Simon Blackburn, and Peter Singer will discuss this question at Arizona State University this Nov. 6.
* Do graphic warning labels on cigarette packages really deter people from lighting up? Karen Schrock investigates in Scientific American Mind. (The magazine also recently ran an unrelated but equally thought-provoking article on the mind of a psychopath).

Sex, Sin and Zen: A Buddhist Exploration of Sex.

Posted by They call him James Ure On September - 18 - 2010
I was honored to review a copy of Brad Warner's new book titled, Sex, Sin and Zen: A Buddhist Exploration of Sex from Celibacy to Polyamory and Everything in Between. I have yet to finish the book but it's a page turner, eye opener and refreshing expose on the confluence of Buddhism and sexuality. As someone who has long had sexual scars from the upbringing of the religion of my youth; I have long contemplated upon how as a Buddhist I should approach sexuality.

Until this book, most of what I have read about Buddhism and sexuality has come from celibate monks and nuns. These monastics are some of the most enlightened people on Earth yet it is still difficult for me to take sexual advice from someone who has probably never known sexuality in much of any form.

The other obstacle I have had difficulty navigating at times when dealing with sexuality and Buddhism is that it is often intertwined with traditional Asian culture, which sometimes makes it confusing for a western Buddhist (and when I say "western Buddhist" I include westerners of Asian backgrounds that might feel they can relate to their western culture sometimes more than their Asian one. Not that all do, or should. I'm just pointing out that not all "western Buddhists" are white). Anyway, It's not that I find Asian culture inferior in the least. It is a beautiful culture that I admire deeply and happily learn from daily. In fact, in many ways I find much of what Asian culture has to offer to be desperately lacking in western societies like here in America.

Still, when it comes to sexuality it was very helpful (for me) to hear it talked about in western terms, with western references to western pop culture--and from someone of my generation, Brad Warner. It's just the culture that I understand most. Please don't think I assume that only westerners understand sexuality because that's not my intention. I'm simply talking about in the way I understand most--keep that in mind. I don't mean to insult someone, so if you find anything in this post offensive; please forgive my ignorance. Something to note from the book, (I'm not dishing out all the saucy stuff here -- you have to buy the book--sorry) Warner is coming from Zen Buddhism, which sometimes is less rigid about sexuality than perhaps some other sects. In addition, it is Zen from Japan, which Warner reminds us often allows monastics to marry. So, keep that context in mind when deciding if to read it or not.

Also, a quick warning to those who might have "virgin ears" (to throw in a pun) when it comes to sexuality. This book doesn't speak about it in medical terms, and thankfully, so to those of us who aren't doctors. Warner, refreshingly, for me, uses modern terminology and examples that permeate the younger generations today. Yes, it is sometimes makes you blush but since when did sexuality become a subject you could address properly without a little sensual feeling? I adore the monks but when I hear them talk about sexuality it's been so denuded (sorry, another pun) that you can hardly tell if what they're addressing is in fact, sex!! It seems that sexuality is one topic that some Buddhists feel is taboo or unimportant. Notice I said, "some" Buddhists--not all, of course see it this way.

This book reminds me of the old, American, book, "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Sex but Were Afraid to Ask" that taught a lot of Americans about sexual intimacy. Except that this is the Zen Buddhist, modern punk version!! Warner addresses everything from "Are Zen Buddhists allowed to masturbate? Are they allowed to look at pornography? Is there wiggle room with celibacy? Or, Sex and Karma, Sex and Suffering, Sex and No-Self. As well as, Zen Dating and Marriage Advice. And even talk about "mindful sex!!" Incidentally, I like Warner's take on mindfulness in this book where he says perhaps a better phrase is "being present" as, "When you say, 'I am mindful of (fill in the blank),' you are already creating separation between you and your activities. True mindfulness is when you let go of the idea of mindfulness and just do whatever it is you happen to be doing" (emphasis added by James).

Warner believes as I do that it isn't the sex itself that's a problem but the clinging to sex. Or becoming so attached to sex that you can't enjoy anything else in life. Too often sex gets thrown out at the same time as the desire for it but sex can be engaged in with total awareness of everyone involved and based on the middle-way. His teacher, Gudo Nishijima Roshi rephrases the third precept as, "Do not desire too much" rather than "Do not misuse sexuality." Bodhidharma, the fifth-century Buddhist monk traditionally cited as the founder of the Zen school, said, "There is nothing to grasp. Not giving rise to attachment is the precept of not misusing sexuality."

The last thing I want to address before leaving you swirling with sex and Zen in your mind is that not all of this book is just about sex. It's so much more than that. It's above all a book of how to enjoy sexuality as a Zen Buddhist and do it with doing the least amount of harm as possible to you and others. This is where Right Intention comes in. If your intention toward sexuality is out of love and not pure selfishness then enjoy!! Buddhism isn't just austerity and reverence after all!! Believe it or not, (after seeing some of the dour, serious and painful faces on some American Buddhists in sanghas) Buddhists do allow for fun and happiness!! If someone tells you that Buddhism is no fun at all and nothing but pain then I might recommend you read Brad Warner's book.

That's all I can say because I want you to get the full barrage of Warner's nod to the sensual side of Zen Buddhist life. To give away any more of the saucy bits would be to ruin the fun!! I highly recommend this book to anyone with a sense of humor, the ability to not take life too seriously and a sincere desire to better understand sexuality in Zen Buddhism. I give it a 9.5 out of 10--one of my favorite contemporary Buddhists books in a long while.

~Peace to all beings~

Podcast Teaser: Brendan Nyhan, on False Beliefs that Refuse to Die

Posted by Massimo Pigliucci On September - 17 - 2010
By Julia Galef
Ever notice how some beliefs only seem to become stronger, even as they're repeatedly debunked? For example, the belief that Barack Obama is a Muslim is held by at least 10 percent of the population, despite having been repeatedly denied and debunked for months in the national news.
Brendan Nyhan is a political scientist and blogger at the University of Michigan who has been investigating why this happens, and how people process media information that contradicts what they already think. So why aren't they swayed by hearing that Obama is not a Muslim? "The 'not' seems to fade away," Nyhan said on a recent On The Media appearance. "The canonical example in politics is Richard Nixon saying, I'm not a crook, and after a while people started associating “Nixon” and “crook.”"
This issue is especially relevant to skeptics, who often find themselves in the tricky position of deciding whether or not to publicly debunk bogus claims like the vaccine-autism link or the efficacy of homeopathic remedies. Will the coverage clear up misconceptions? Or will it backfire, calling public attention to the claims and actually reinforcing belief in them?
On episode 19 of Rationally Speaking, we'll be talking to Nyhan about what he's learned from his research studies and his experience maintaining Spinsanity, a watchdog blog monitoring political misinformation. Is there any hope of clearing up false beliefs if denials simply make the problem worse? Leave comments and questions for Nyhan below.

GUEST POST: Turkey’s Choice, An Islamic Trojan Horse?

Posted by Massimo Pigliucci On September - 15 - 2010
By Tunç Iyriboz

On September 12, with an impressive 73% turnout hailed by President Obama as democratic "vibrancy," more than 38 million Turkish citizens voted in a referendum on important constitutional amendments. The 58% "Yes" outcome was unexpectedly higher than predicted by recent polls.

From one point of view, the results can be interpreted as highly positive for improving the country's democratic record. The proposed set of amendments modify the 1982 constitution, a byproduct of modern Turkey's most recent interruption of democratic continuity — the 1980 military coup d'état. The referendum, symbolically scheduled on the coup's 30th anniversary, introduces key constitutional amendments improving the rights of the individual, strengthening gender equality, eliminating discrimination against children, elderly, the disabled and veteran, and enhancing rights to privacy. These changes are considered universally noncontroversial, and are supported both by the secular opposition (traditionally left-leaning), and the sponsoring political party in power, the controversially Islamic-leaning AKP, with its increasingly powerful leader, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdo?an. The amendments were also required to support Turkey's accession to the European Union.

According to another point of view, bitterly voiced by the opposing secular establishment — including the military, the proposed modifications actually represent an Islamic Trojan Horse: the democratic amendments were used to camouflage other clauses that radically alter the way the judicial and military entities function, permanently disrupting a delicate balance between these traditionally separated powers, and putting them under increasing control of the ruling party. These include clauses that empower civilian courts to try military personnel, leading the way to prosecution of past and future coup organizers, members of the so called "deep state." On the judicial front, included are increases to the number of justices on the Constitutional Court, and to the number of members on the Judges and Prosecutors Higher Board, some of which would be appointed by the parliament. The changes can be expected to bring a composition shift to the traditionally secular judicial branch. The secular opposition claims Erdo?an plans to use this to fill the courts with Islamists, pushing the country to the edge of a quiet Islamic coup. AKP maintains that its political stance is no different than European Christian democratic parties, in a Muslim flavor.

For some, this marks the end of Kemalism, further weakening the political power of the country's military, already eroded by the AKP administration's recent investigations. The military was traditionally seen as the protector of the secular state, along with the judicial branch. Turkey has been a secular democracy since the 1920s, and represents one of the most successful attempts to implement a working modern democracy with an overwhelmingly Muslim constituency. This unusual accomplishment has not been easy: The democratic history has been interrupted by military coups d'état in 1960,1971, and 1980, and a couple of more recent soft coups — military memoranda, in 1997 and 2007. Most of these political turning points included some justification to keep religiously motivated political movements under control and preserve the strongly secular quality of the state. They have introduced periods of democratic regression, which have become obstacles on the country's path to become the modern European state Mustafa Kemal intended.

It has become increasingly inappropriate and implausible for secular Turkey to fall back to such totalitarian methods in the 21st century, particularly as the prospect of European Union membership intensifies. Recent developments, leading to this referendum, actually make another military coup or memorandum highly unlikely to ever happen again. If the Trojan Horse claim is true, the regime in Turkey will find itself under increasing religious influence. However, the constitution remains staunchly secular, and the democracy increasingly vibrant. With this referendum, Turkey may have made of itself the perfect laboratory to test whether Islam today has reached the potential of behaving as Christianity has in Western democracies. Turkey's current choice appears to give that explosive mixture a full chance, and challenges non-repressed Islam to prove it can do well under secular rule.

If Turkey fails this test, that is, if the Islamic penetration of the other branches of the government reaches a turning point that leads to an Islamic constitution and law, one can expect the political landscape of the Middle East to change significantly in the next few decades. For the worse, needless to say. Such a transformation could lead to an extremely unstable Middle East, not unlikely to facilitate the next World War. If it wins, that is, if Turkey maintains its secular definition of state, while allowing a diverse, fair and uninterrupted Western style democracy to thrive, we will have reason to be optimistic about the future of the rest of the Muslim world. Sam Harris' thesis that there is a certain "je ne sais quoi" about Islam that makes such cohabitation impossible would be proven wrong. We should actually all hope and root for that.

Now, I don't mean, of course, root for Islam. What I mean is, to change the way we deal with it. Like its older Abrahamic siblings, Islam has proved that it is not easily going away. It is not exactly giving us a choice. In Turkey, of all places, after 90 years of attempts to repress, neutralize and regulate Islam using all kinds of methods, including violent ones, it is back in full power. The approach to it now needs to be different. We should look for ways to better understand it, to make it work with modern western democracies, civilized ways of cohabiting with it as has been possible with the older Abrahamic religions in the "West." Certainly, due to its relatively young age, this religion is still going through its violent adolescence, unlike its more mature and established Abrahamic relatives. Places like Turkey, which have experienced a relatively accelerated path to modernity, may represent the best setting we can hope for in bringing a non-violent coexistence with reason.

---------
Tunç Iyriboz is a medical doctor, a radiologist. He is associate member, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and associate professor, Cornell Medical College. His interests include linguistics, philosophy of science, medical ethics, philosophy of mind and language.

Bjørn Lomborg was wrong, Lomborg (almost) says

Posted by Massimo Pigliucci On September - 13 - 2010
By Massimo Pigliucci
I’ll be darned. Bjørn Lomborg, the author of the infamous The Skeptical Environmentalist, one of the most thoroughly debunked books of the past decade (and one that has given a bad connotation to the word “skeptic”), has just changed his mind! In his new book, Smart Solutions to Climate Change, Lomborg says that climate change is “undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today ... a challenge humanity must confront.”
I could say “I told you so” (for instance in a chapter on global warming in my Nonsense on Stilts), but I’ll refrain — largely because I would be the last on a long list of scientists who have published detailed (negative) reviews of Lomborg’s first book in prestigious outlets such as Scientific American (volume 286, issue 1, 2002), Nature (8 November 2001, pp. 149-150) and Science (9 November 2001, pp. 1285-1286).
No, we need to give credit were credit is due. The man has changed his mind, and has come out publicly to say so. I can’t wait until Fox News has him over for an interview. Indeed, while I have been a harsh critic of Lomborg (largely on the ground that as an economist he really does not have the technical expertise to pronounce about global warming), I think some of the attacks against him were (and still are) ridiculous. Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, famously compared Lomborg to Hitler — and you know that when one plays the H-card all rational argument goes out the window. Similarly, in a commentary on the new book, long-time Lomborg critic Howard Friel wrote: “If Lomborg were really looking for smart solutions, he would push for an end to perpetual and brutal war, which diverts scarce resources from nearly everything that Lomborg legitimately says needs more money.” Oh, c’mon, so unless one brings lasting peace to the world one cannot be taken seriously?
Still, it is interesting to look at some of the details of Lomborg’s change of heart. He claims it happened once a group of economists was asked what was the best way to spend $50 billion for humanity. Back in 2004 putting money into climate change ranked straight at the bottom of the list, but four years later the issue made it at least half the way through the rankings. Once Lomborg and his colleagues began to consider not just cutting carbon emissions, but a variety of other solutions to the problem, they began to appreciate that something not only had to be done, but could in fact be done.
(Notice, of course, that this is exactly the kind of question for which we need the expertise of economists: not to tell us whether climate change is happening or what its causes are, and not even to advance possible technological solutions, but to provide us with the best risk-benefit analysis in economic terms of an array of proposed solutions. Also notice that Lomborg claims that he didn’t really change his mind, because he has always maintained that climate change was real, just that it wasn’t “the end of the world.” While literally true, this seems a highly disingenuous reading of The Skeptical Environmentalist, and if it were accurate, it would make all the criticism of Lomborg’s early book utterly incomprehensible.)
Lomborg, of course, has not lost his techno-optimism. He thinks that “This is not about ‘we have all got to live with less, wear hair-shirts and cut our carbon emissions.’ It's about technologies, about realizing there’s a vast array of solutions ... Investing $100 billion annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century.” Well, first of all, nobody ever said anything about wearing hair-shirts — I would be against it on aesthetic grounds alone. Second, once again Lomborg is crossing the line between what he has expertise to talk about (economics) to what he probably knows little about (new technologies and their efficacy). One of the recurring problems with techno-optimists is that they subscribe to the magic pill school of life, where if only we put our minds (and out money) to it, we’ll achieve it, whatever “it” is. Seems like a bit more caution and less hubris would not be an altogether bad thing.
Still, some of Lomborg’s suggestions are positively stunning, even for a skeptical economist. He is advising not only to pour money into research and development of cleaner energy sources such as wind, solar and nuclear (duh!), but recommending a global tax on carbon emissions, part of which would go for (gasp!) global healthcare! I wonder what Senator Inhofe would think of that.
And that’s not all. While acknowledging that most economists think that research and development is best done by the private sector (it’s not clear why, since the private sector is perfectly happy to take advantage of pre-development research funded by government agencies like NSF or NIH), he would actually make an exception for climate change related technologies. Lomborg draws a parallel here with government-sponsored research on computers during the 1950s, which laid the groundwork for the commercial version of the internet. But the real question is: can Sarah Palin get behind this obviously socialistic approach?
Seriously, though. Lomborg deserves credit for changing his mind and going public about it. His specific ideas still require critical analysis by a broad community of experts, not just in economics but also in the various technologies that he is advancing as possible solutions to the problem of climate change. Nonetheless, we now have another strong voice that clearly admits that there is a problem, and an urgent one at that. And as we all know, the first step toward a solution is to make that dramatic admission. Oh, and please no more H-comparisons, let’s reserve those for real evil bastards, of which the world will always provide plentiful examples.

Massimo’s Picks

Posted by Massimo Pigliucci On September - 12 - 2010
By Massimo Pigliucci
* Oh gosh, NPR now is publishing fuzzy warmy pieces promoting Feng Shui and self-help!
* Study suggests that supernatural belief stems from a category mistake regarding core knowledge.
* In case you missed it, a US Judge rejected the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy of the Military concerning gays. It took some time, now what?
* Insightful essay in The New Yorker about the history of the New Thought movement, of which the book “The Secret” (and its just released follow up, “The Power”) is one of the latest incarnations.
* On the cost and causes of the Iraq war, now that it is (allegedly) over.
* Whewell’s Ghost, a new blog on the history and philosophy of science.
* My National Science Foundation interview on the future of evolutionary theory.
* One more on experimental philosophy. This article defends it, but the main example seems like a good reason to treat it as an oxymoron (or at best as an example of science-informed philosophy; or is it philosophy-informed science?).
* Evolution—The Extended Synthesis is already in its second printing!
* George Williams, one of the most influential evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, whom I had the pleasure to meet when I was at Stony Brook, just died.

The President and Religion

Posted by Massimo Pigliucci On September - 10 - 2010
By Michael De Dora
President Barack Obama’s religious beliefs, like almost everything else about the man and his policies, are under scrutiny. A recent Pew poll found that roughly 20 percent of Americans believe Obama is not a Christian, but a Muslim, while a whopping 43 percent claim to not know Obama’s religion. Soon after this poll, Glenn Beck charged that Obama practices a form a religion that is neither Christian, nor Muslim. The social drama went far enough to prompt the White House to release a rather weird statement asserting that “President Obama is a committed Christian, and his faith is an important part of his daily life. He prays every day, he seeks a small circle of Christian pastors to give him spiritual advice and counseling, he even receives a daily devotional that he uses each morning.”
To be sure, the way in which the public is “discussing” or “critiquing” the president’s religion is not ideal. There is clearly no good evidence that he is a Muslim, and a whole lot of good evidence he is a Christian. His liberal brand of Christianity is surely more widely practiced than Beck’s Mormonism. And the public’s focus on religious affiliation seems shortsighted, as mere affiliation to any religion does not imply anything about the sincerity of one’s belief or the level of one’s religiosity. Consider that both Sarah Palin and Barack Obama are Christians. You get the point (or should).
Yet does this mean a conversation about the President – not just Obama, but any President – and religion is worthless? Some people have answered “yes.” Several writers at The Washington Post’s On Faith section argue that the presidency is a secular job, and therefore a president’s religion should not be a matter of discussion. Other commentators have noted that the nation currently faces an enormity of serious challenges that are way more important than Obama’s religion.
Many proponents of the first argument cite the well-known 1960 speech given by then-presidential candidate John F. Kennedy on his Catholicism, and more generally, church and state separation. In that speech, Kennedy said that, “I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic.”
Yet Obama considered this line of thought in his book The Audacity of Hope, and rejected it. In that book, Obama recalled the 2004 race for United States Senator from Illinois, in which he ran against radical Christian rightist Alan Keyes. During his time on the campaign trail, Keyes continually slammed Obama for his liberal religious views, even suggesting that “Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama” because of his record on abortion rights and equality for gays. Obama, winning handily (70 to 27 percent), was advised to ignore Keyes’ remarks. But Obama could not do that. He answered with what he said has come to be “the typically liberal response in such debates – namely, I said that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can’t impose my own religious views on another, that I was running to be U.S. Senator of Illinois and not the minister of Illinois.”
Yet this reply didn’t completely please Obama. He knew the answer “did not adequately address the role my faith has in guiding my own values and my own beliefs.” Obama had religious beliefs, and they influenced the way he interacted with the world – how he created legislation, voted on bills, and treated others. He couldn’t discount this. Obama wasn’t running for a position as a minister, but his religious beliefs did influence how he governed.
With this in mind, I certainly don’t disagree that the Presidency is a secular governmental position – in theory. That is, our lawmakers, judges, and presidents are sworn to serve the secular Constitution and the people, not their own Gods or holy books. But secularists too often forget that things are somewhat different in practice. Secularists might desire religion to be a private matter, but it is currently very public. Religion should not matter, but it does matter, because most Americans are religious (at least the ones being elected), and because any religious belief a person holds will likely influence their actions. As such, it ought not be ignored, but fully discussed.
The second argument is that it is of questionable importance to have a conversation about Obama’s religion because the country faces a range of more serious issues. Some of these more important concerns include: Afghanistan, Iraq, the economy, Wall Street, taxation, immigration, poverty, and gay marriage. For example, as David Schultz wrote, “the official unemployment rate is almost 10%. The real rate is more like 17%. I don't care if the President worships a goat.” What Schultz cares about is the president solving more pressing issues.
Personally, I would care mightily if our President worshiped a goat, but that is not the argument I am trying to make. Instead, two points need be considered.
First, it is hard to separate religious belief and policy, for very often religious belief shapes one’s policy. As Nathan Diament writes at the Post, “A person's faith commitment is a key window into their system of values and beliefs.” That is, a President’s religious beliefs might suggest how he or she will perform, and how dedicated he or she will be to the Constitution. For example, recall former President George W. Bush, while in office, made clear that he was governing the country with divine guidance (or so he thought): “I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job.” I cannot see where the sentiment behind this statement would not impact his policy decisions. Indeed, it was reported that Bush said the following in August 2003, after the United States had invaded Afghanistan and before it invaded Iraq:
“I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, ‘George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan.’ And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.’ And I did. And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me, ‘Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.’ And, by God, I'm gonna do it.”
Or remember the Republican presidential candidate debate in 2008. Asked to raise their hands if they did not accept the scientific fact of evolution, four nominees did so. One of the four, Ron Paul, would later state that the question was “inappropriate” because the presidential election should “not be decided on a scientific matter.” Yet it is quite easy to see how one’s rejection of the the fundamental theory of the life sciences, and more generally his related rightist religious beliefs, would impact his policy decisions. Where would he stand on religion in the science classroom? Stem cells? Gay marriage? Abortion? The list goes on. The point is that the problems we face might actually have been largely caused or influenced by religious beliefs. The solution, in part at least, is to have a robust and honest discussion about them, not to push aside their impact.
Many write off Bush as some weird twist of fate, never to be repeated. The same people might also dismiss Paul as having no chance at the presidency. But Bush and Paul are not the exceptions many think them to be. Very often politicians in high-ranking positions publicly declare their religious beliefs in the political realm, defending their politics based on religious beliefs. Even Obama does this, albeit less often than Bush.
Which brings me to the second, related, point. I agree with Schultz that the nation currently faces more important matters than Obama’s religious beliefs. But this is because Obama’s religious beliefs are benign compared to Bush’s. Yes, Obama’s religious beliefs do play a role in his policymaking – his position on gay marriage, for one – and they ought to be discussed. But Obama is not steeped in religiosity like Bush. He is a rather secular, liberal Christian President. I agree there are more important issues to worry about, yet keep in mind that this conversation would be completely different if someone like Bush – or Sarah Palin – were in office. The President’s religion matters insofar as how religious he or she is and the nature of their religiosity.

Podcast Teaser: Evolutionary Psychology

Posted by Massimo Pigliucci On September - 9 - 2010
By Massimo Pigliucci
You’ve heard the claims: men are inclined to cheat on women because natural selection favors multiple offspring from multiple mates, especially if you don’t have to pay child support. Even rape has been suggested to be the result of natural selection in favor of “secondary mating strategies” when the primary ones fail. And of course we all know that men prefer the same waist-to-hip ratio across times and cultures because it is the one that is most highly correlated with female fertility, no?
Welcome to evolutionary psychology, a discipline curiously situated at the interface between evolutionary science and pop psychology, where both wild and reasonable claims seem to clash against the wall of an incredible scarcity of pertinent data. It will be the topic of an upcoming Rationally Speaking podcast.
To be fair, most evolutionary psychologists are careful to separate “is” from “ought” — in pure philosophical fashion, one might add — and clearly state that just because rape is natural it doesn’t mean that it is moral. Still, the evolutionary study of human behavior is controversial for a variety of reasons, not just because feminists take exception to the way women are thought of by researchers in the field.
Take for instance, the waist-to-hip ratio hypothesis. The idea was first proposed by Devendra Singh in 1993 and a Google Scholar search easily shows how frequently the claim has been repeated and re-investigated. But the idea that a particular waist-to-hip ratio is a universal indicator of sexual preference by human males across cultures and times is simply false, as several studies have clearly shown (for instance, here and here).
The issue that we will explore in the podcast is not whether it makes sense to apply evolutionary principles to the study of human behavior. Of course it does, human beings are no exception to evolution. But the devil is in the details, and the details deal with the complexities and nuances of how exactly evolutionary biologists test adaptive hypotheses, as well as with the nature of historical science itself.

Growing Pressure on European Union for a United Nations Investigation of Burmese Regime.

Posted by They call him James Ure On September - 8 - 2010
From the U.S. Campaign for Burma:

Pressure on the European Union (EU) to support an UN investigation into crimes against humanity in Burma is growing. This week three prominent dissident groups in Burma, the All Burma Monks Alliance, the 88 Generation Students and the All Burma Federation of Student Union sent an open letter to the EU asking for their support. The pressure is working--just this week Hungary announced it supports the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry into crimes against humanity in Burma!

Right now, the EU is drafting a resolution on Burma that it will introduce at the UN General Assembly meeting (UNGA) which will begin on the 3rd week of September. We need your help to make sure this resolution calls for the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry into Crimes Against Humanity in Burma. We need you to call the ambassadors again as soon as possible.

This is long over due. There have already been 19 UN General Assembly resolutions on Burma since 1991, but none have mentioned the Commission of Inquiry and none have taken serious action. Following UN Special Rapporteur Tomas Quintana's call for the investigation this March, some of the UN's most powerful players, including the US and UK, have endorsed his recommendation. Support for the Commission of Inquiry is the highest it has even been. But this is not enough, we need the EU, a major sponsor of the draft resolution on Burma, to include the call for the Commission of Inquiry in this UNGA resolution.

Below, we have included instructions on how to call or email.

Myra Dahgaypaw