on retreat .......

when it's like gnawing on an iron spike, without any flavor, then you must not falter in your intent -- when you get like this, after all it's good news.
[Master Ta Hui (1088-1163), from Swampland Flowers, translated by J.C. Cleary, p. 44]

On Harris On Collins

I apologize to anyone who is absolutely, positively and utterly sick to death of hearing about Sam Harris and Francis Collins. I really would like to stop posting on the subject, but events well beyond my control are keeping this subject alive. I do want to take a minute, though, to explain my own continued and keen interest in this matter.

First of all I have loathed the New Atheists since I first heard of their loathsome existence. In fact, I already didn't like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett from way back when they were red-baiting Stephen Jay Gould and accusing him of being a closet theist! Srsly - check this out, from 1997: http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/Gould.html. I have also loathed Christopher Hitchens ever since he turned into one of George W. Bush's second tier poodles (well below Tony Blair on that roster).

Far more seriously, though, Harris' NYT column on Collins' nomination to be NIH Director represents a genuinely dangerous escalation in the blindly intolerant idiocy that is the New Atheism. One would not be surprised to hear such overtly bigoted sentiments being expressed by David Duke, but the New York Times is unlikely to ever provide space to Duke on their OpEd page. When it is proposed with a straight face to bar someone from a prominent public office on the basis of their religion and the proposal is trumpeted in the pages of the New York Times by someone who is seen by many as a "liberal", a best-selling author, an invited speaker at such venues as The Aspen Festival, a winner of a PEN Award -- well this really and truly is something new under the sun.

Thirdly, as I already alluded to, others keep kicking this very undead horse. Andrew Brown's Guardian piece on Sunday really got the New Atheists riled up -- especially since Brown very clearly called them out on the issue of religious bigotry.

Finally, as anyone who has read more than a few posts in this blog knows I am quite frequently, and quite harshly, critical of Christianity and Christians, and I am often critical of what I see as "Christianizing" biases in scholarship dealing with Paganism (both modern and not so modern). But I think it is important to oppose religious bigotry even, no, strike that, especially, when it is directed at a religion other than one's own.

Added later: And on the off chance that anyone doesn't "get" why I keep posting pictures of lesbians and gay men smooching - it's because those who have religious beliefs should feel free to openly express, indeed, to celebrate, those beliefs. Just as people in love should be free to openly express and celebrate their love. And if anyone doesn't like it, that's just too freaking bad.

Thinking Like a (Pagan) Scientist, Part Un

More than 20 centuries ago it was well known that the earth is a sphere. In fact, Cicero, in his famous Dream of Scipio, written in 51 BC, describes the polar, equatorial and temperate climate bands that circle the earth. Figure 1 to the right is an illustration from Macrobius' sixth century AD Commentary on the Dream of Scipio.

Isaac Asimov's classic essay How Did We Find Out Earth Is Round? gives an excellent overview of how ancient people were able to arrive at the conclusion that the earth is a sphere (click here to download a pdf of the essay).

In addition to knowing that the earth is a sphere, it was also known, in theory, how to calculate the size of the earth, in particular its circumference. Scientists even knew (again, at least in theory) how to also calculate the size of the moon, the distance between the earth and the moon and the distance between the earth and the sun.

There was a very basic problem, though, facing ancient scientists. In fact the same problem is ever present in any scientific investigation: all measurements involve some non-zero amount of error. The amount of error, or uncertainty, in the raw data is then "propagated" as that data is used as the basis for calculations. Eratosthenes (see below) is often credited as the first person to calcluate the earth's circumference, but he did not directly measure how big around the earth is using some gigantic tape measure - obviously. Rather he took three measurements (see Figure 2 to the right and below), and used these to do his calculation.

In fact, the results that ancient scientists arrived at were often not that bad. For example, Eratosthenes of Alexandria (c. 276 - c. 195 BC) calculated the circumference of the earth to be about 25,000 miles, which is extremely accurate. But over 100 years later, Posidonius of Rhodes (c. 135 BC - 51 BC) concluded from his measurements and calculations that the earth's circumference is actually about 18,000 miles, and then about 200 years after the famed scientist Ptolemy (90 – 168 AD) (another Alexandrian) concurred with Posidonius.

Erroneous estimates of the earth's circumference (based in large part on those of Posidonius and Ptolemy) that significantly underestimated the size of the earth were what led Christopher Columbus to believe he could sail to the "Indies"!

It is essential to appreciate that ancient scientists were absolutely correct in their fundamentals: they understood the shape of the earth, and they understood in theory how to calculate it's size. In other words they knew how to (1) take observations of the natural world, (2) draw conclusions from those observation in the form of mathematical relationships, and (3) conduct experiments based on those mathematical relationships. Let's look at each of those one at a time in a little more detail.

(1) Reproducible observations. The spherical shape of the earth is readily observable to those who spend time on the open seas. Objects "disappear over the edge" of the sea as they move away from an observer. The higher up the observer is, the further away the "edge" appears to be. But in addition to this observable property of the earth, Eratosthenes, Posidonius and Ptolemy also relied on observations of the relative position of the sun in the sky and how it varies with latitude, as well as on observations of the positions of fixed stars in the sky at different locations at different time. These other observations (of the sun and stars) also played a key role in their experiments.

(2) Mathematical relationships. If the earth is a sphere then all of the known geometrical properties of a sphere hold for the earth. That is, an abstract sphere provides a "mathematical model" for (the shape of) the earth. Also, the earth and the sun, or the earth and one or more fixed stars, can be represented as so many spheres and points suspended in space, and the geometrical relationships between those abstract spheres and points will be the same as those between the actual earth, sun and stars.

(3) Conducting experiments. Based on the abstract geometrical relationships above, practical experiments can be conducted such as the famous one done by Eratosthenes, who simply measured the length of the shadow cast by an obelisk at noon on the day of the summer solstice. With the length of the shadow and the height of the obelisk in hand all he needed was the distance between the obelisk and the earth's equator, which had already been measured. Although he did not use trigonometry, he had methods of doing the same kind of calculations as those implied in Figure 2 above.

Ptolemy, by the way, was also one of the most important Astrologers of the ancient world. In his Tetrabiblos he strove to present Astrology in a way that was "philosophically fitting". Like most philosophically minded Astrologers, Ptolemy was an adherent of the Stoic school, which not only provided the philosophy of choice for Astrologers but also simultaneously "invented astrophysics, for they believed, as we do, that the same physical laws applied throughout the universe." [A History of Western Astrology, S. Jim Tester, pp. 68-9]

Posidonius, for his part, was one of the greatest polymaths of all times, with published works on Astronomy, Geology, Philosophy, Mathematics, History, Meteorology, and Miltary Science. He is often credited as the originator of the Stoic theory of sumpatheia (see especially Karl Reinhardt's Posidonius: Kosmos und Sympathie). Posidonius was a pivotal figure in the history of ancient philosophy. He lived during a time when there was ever increasing "eclecticism", and he himself especially blurred the distinctions between Pythagoreanism, Platonism and Stoicism in a way that was very similar to, and possibly directly influenced, the late antique school of Plotinus and his famous intellectual descendants (especially Porphyry, Iamblichus, Julian and Proclus).

Eratosthenes' was the third person appointed as head of the Library of Alexandria which was simultaneously a center of scientific research and also a religious institution, as part of the larger Musaeum ("Temple of the Muses"), which was run by a head priest appointed by the king, Ptolemy III Euergetes, who also appointed Eratosthenes to his position. Eratosthenes studied philosophy with the famous Ariston of Chios, and may have also studied with Zeno of Citium, the founder of the Stoic school.

"He doesn't keep it to himself."

Here is the most recent tidbit of bigoted lunacy from PZ Myers:

We aren't interested in what public officials do in their free time. They can have whatever legal hobby they want, they can favor whatever private rituals they want, they can associate with any non-dangerous group on their weekends that they want, whether it's going to church or gathering to watch football.

So what's different about Collins? He doesn't keep it to himself. He is openly and avidly evangelical, brags about adding religious messages to NHGRI announcements, and recently built a high-profile website that promotes evangelical Christianity. I don't mind a Christian in charge of the NIH, but I do object to a missionary, especially one who has said some awfully stupid things about science, being put in control of such a large chunk of our country's science budget.

Before going any further, what the frak is this crap about "adding religious messages to NHGRI announcements"? For those who don't know, NHGRI stands for the National Human Genome Research Institute, which Francis Collins was head of from 1993 to 2008. When the first complete human genome had been sequenced by the NHGRI under Collins' leadership, two years ahead of schedule and under budget, apparently Collins had the temerity to make a reference to God at some point during the celebrations.

I have yet to track down exactly what it was that Collins is supposed to have said, and PZ Myers provides no quotation, nor any kind of citation as the basis for his "accusation". Nor did Sam Harris make any mention of this supposed theological faux pas in his NYT Times OpEd piece attacking Collins' nomination. This is the closest thing Myers, Harris & Co. have to any concrete evidence that there is some "danger" in allowing this religious fanatic be the NIH Director. He might mention God!!!

(This is a very serious issue for New Atheists, by the way, because they get very confused anytime they hear a scientist express any kind of religious belief. They apparently have very low tolerance for self-induced cognitive dissonance.)

Apparently the New Atheists have been scrambling to come up with something, anything, to try to distract attention away from the fact that they have now taken a very public position against one of the most basic principles of democracy: freedom of religion. This is the best they can do. I am sure that within the next couple of days someone will manage to find a copy of the dreaded mention of God and once we see the exact quote in context, there will be no there there.

But what really bothers Myers is not that Collins' might have, once, in his 15 years of work on the Human Genome Project, let slip that he believes in God without first taking his lab coat off. What bothers Myers is far more sweeping than that. Religious scientists are, in Myers' way of seeing things, supposed to skulk about as if they had a terrible, dirty secret to hide. After all, it's bad enough that there are religious scientists in the first place, but must we sit idly by while they "openly and avidly" flaunt their disgusting beliefs in public? Why, oh why, must they "insist on publicly harmonizing their faith with science". Have they no shame?

In other words, PZ Myers is just a garden variety bigot. If he could, he would rid the world of people he disagrees with. But, for now at least, he feels that he cannot accomplish that much, so he merely insists that they keep it to themselves!

PZ Myers wants us all to know how open minded he is. He assures us: "I don't mind a Christian in charge of the NIH." He just doesn't want any uppity Christians, that's all. I keep waiting for him to tell us that some of his best friends are Christians.

"embryonically totalitarian"?

I was beginning to wonder whether or not this issue of Francis Collins' nomination to be NIH Director had played out, but then I just saw that Andrew Brown begins his August 2, 2009 column in the UK Guardian like this

Anyone tempted to believe that the abolition of religion would make the world a wiser and better place should study the works of Sam Harris. Shallow, narrow, and self-righteous, he defends and embodies all of the traits that have made organised religion repulsive; and he does so in the name of atheism and rationality. He has, for example, defended torture, ("restraint in the use of torture cannot be reconciled with our willingness to wage war in the first place") attacked religious toleration in ways that would make Pio Nono blush: "We can no more tolerate a diversity of religious beliefs than a diversity of beliefs about epidemiology and basic hygiene" ; he has claimed that there are some ideas so terrible that we may be justified in killing people just for believing them.

And he ends it like this:

But militant atheism, of the sort that would deny people jobs for their religions beliefs, doesn't actually believe in real science at all, any more than it believes in reason. Rather, it uses "science" and "reason" as tribal labels, and "religion" as a term for witchcraft. Any serious defence of the real, hard-won and easily lost enlightenment must start by rejecting that style of atheism entirely. What use is it to be right about God and wrong about everything else?

Parenthetically I want to say that I feel especially indebted to Brown for drawing my attention to yet another example of just how incredibly godawful the writing of these New Atheists can be:

Every word zings like an elegantly fletched arrow from a taut bowstring and flies in a gratifyingly swift arc to the target, where it thuds satisfyingly into the bullseye.
[from Richard Dawkins' preface to Harris' End of Faith]

But, obviously, Brown's critique of Harris has far more to do with substance than style. Brown correctly condemns Harris' arguments ("To the extent that Harris has any argument at all"), as "fantastically illiberal". But personally I believe that Brown gives too much credit when he also characterizes the posture that Harris has assumed as only "embryonically totalitarian". That embryo hatched when Harris published his first book, if not before.

Andrew Brown is no rookie to the fun new sport of New Atheist bashing. A December 2008 column of his points out many of the flaws of the New Atheism, including the proposition that

Science is the opposite of religion, and will lead people into the clear sunlit uplands of reason.

and also their unsubtle insistence that all religion by its very nature must invariably be

something like American fundamentalist protestantism, or Islam. More moderate forms are false and treacherous: if anything even more dangerous, because they conceal the raging, homicidal lunacy that is religion's true nature.

It's bad enough for the New Atheists that it is impossible for them to deny the existence of what, according to their vision of reality, should not be able to exist: religious scientists. But Collins is not just any religious man; his evangelical religiosity is straightforwardly of the very type that Harris & Co. insist lies hidden at the heart of darkness beating within the chest of even the most liberal seeming religious traditions. How can it be reconciled with the world-view of the New Atheists that an evangelical Christian could be a scientist of far greater stature than any of the proponents of the New Atheism!

The situation that Collins' nomination creates for the New Atheists is not unlike the embarrassment of the the Nazis during the 1936 Berlin Olympics. According to no less an authority than Albert Speer, Adolf Hitler "was highly annoyed by the series of triumphs by the marvelous colored American runner" Jesse Owens. And Hitler's proposed solution to the cognitive dissonance caused by inferior races outperforming Aryans was the same as that proposed by Sam Harris: just as Harris thinks that religious scientists like Collins should not even be considered for prominent posts like NIH Director, Hitler felt that non-white athletes "should be excluded from future games."

"free to profess and by argument to maintain"

Two of the most prominent of the so-called New Atheists have finally gotten it off their chests: they are now both clearly on the record in favor of outright religious intolerance in general and discrimination in hiring on the basis of religious beliefs in particular.

Richard Dawkins, an internationally known scientist, author and social and political activist says that Francis Collins, a colleague of his in the biological sciences who happens to be Presbyterian, should be barred from being appointed to head the American NIH purely because of Collins' religious views: "by the very fact that he is capable of holding such beliefs at all"!

Meanwhile here in the United States (Dawkins is British and, therefore, perhaps unfamiliar with the freedoms we assume over here) noted American author Sam Harris has also very publicly opposed Collins' nomination, again purely and solely on the grounds of the man's religious beliefs. In Harris' OpEd piece in the New York Times, he refers to Collins' religious beliefs in every single paragraph yet neither the phrase "religious tolerance" nor even just the word "tolerance" appears anywhere. Nor is there any mention of the constitutional provisions for freedom of religion and freedom of expression. It is probably wise on Harris' part to avoid any discussion or even an oblique reference to such things, for there is no way to reconcile what he and Dawkins are saying with the words of Thomas Jefferson:

No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief.

But all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.

Dawkins and Harris have reached the point of explicitly rejecting one of the most basic principles of any truly democratic society. They oppose not just freedom of religion, but freedom of thought itself. For what are the "religious opinions and belief" that Jefferson refers to if not the thoughts and ideas of an individual human being? And all of Dawkins' and Harris' arguments boil down to the fact that they don't like the way Collins thinks.

Here is a point that bears repeating and repeating: to criticize Francis Collins' religious ideas is one thing, to demand that he be barred from holding a prominent position of public trust because of his ideas is a completely different matter. Another great American patriot, Thomas Paine, was as ferocious a critic of Christianity as ever lived:

Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or hereafter.
[The Age of Reason, Part 2, Chapter III]

But Paine saw no contradiction, because there is none, in also writing that

As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government, to protect all conscientious profession thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith.... Suspicion is the companion of mean souls, and the bane of all good society. For myself, I fully and conscientiously believe, that it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be a diversity of religious opinions among us.
[Common Sense, January 10, 1776]

Unfortunately, there are people who strongly disagree with Jefferson and Paine, and agree instead with Dawkins and Harris.

PZ Myers, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota, and an outspoken New Atheist is willing to goes so far as to question whether or not any "devout Christians" should be allowed to hold any "positions of power" whatsoever!! At the same time Myers tries to cover his bigotry by claiming that his opposition to Collins' nomination has nothing to do with Collins' religion, rather it is becaues Collins is a "science denier", although Myers cannot name one bit of "science" that Francis Collins has ever "denied".

Russell Blackford, on the other hand, nicely demonstrates that it is possible to criticize Collins' religious views and still not propose to blacklist him on that basis. Blackford does not hold back from critiquing Collins in even greater detail than Harris did in his NYT piece, but then Blackford says this:

For all that, I do not think that Collins should be disqualified from appointment as director of the NIH. First, it is unlikely that this one appointment will have significant adverse effects on scientific attempts to understand human nature, and Collins may well find ways to reconcile (at least in his own mind) his Christian image of the world and whatever findings emerge in future from the field of neuroscience. The problem is not so much that biomedical research will be hindered in any significant way by this particular appointment.

Moreover, Collins is clearly qualified for the job, having worked successfully as head of the Human Genome Project. If he were disqualified, we would have to disqualify huge numbers of other people who combine strong scientific backgrounds with religious beliefs. It wouldn't end with the directorship of the National Institutes of Health, but would apply to many other high-level roles in public policy management. Vast numbers would be ruled out of contention. That is just too unpalatable, politically, to be realistic. No doubt there comes a point where a candidate's religious beliefs clash so plainly with established scientific theories that it is untenable to offer him or her a senior post involving science policy. But a great deal of latitude must be allowed before that point is reached. To act otherwise is totally unrealistic and politically unacceptable in any society that gives (even) lip service to ideas of social pluralism, freedom of religion, etc., let alone in the religiose United States of America.

His argument in this regard could not be more straightforward. Blackford thinks that Collins' attempts to reconcile Christianity with science result in a "contrived and implausible hodge-podge." But, along with Collins' scientific credentials, which Sam Harris himself characterizes as "impeccable", Blackford takes into consideration precisely those themes of tolerance and freedom that Dawkins, Harris and PZ Myers ignore altogether, and, as a result, Blackford concludes that attacks on Collins' nomination, to the extent they are motivated by disapproval of Collins' religious beliefs, are "unacceptable in any society that gives (even) lip service to ideas of social pluralism, freedom of religion, etc."

On the other hand PZ Myers is far from being alone in his lockstep approval of the New Atheist party line. Jerry Coyne writes in his blog that it "isn't exactly true" to say that Harris opposes Collins' nomination simply because Collins is a Christian. Coyne insists that Collins professes an especially objectionable variety of Christianity (which turns out to be Presbyterianism), and not only that, but Collins espouses his bizarre Presbyterian ideas in a way that is too "public" and "vociferous" for Coyne's tastes.

Coyne also writes that "Collins pollutes science with religion", and then tells us just why Francis Collins must be stopped before he causes even greater harm:

By speaking with the authority of a scientist, by discussing science at length, and above all by describing in the same talk the evidence for evolution and the “evidence” for God, acting as if they are of similar epistemic significance, he is confusing his audiences about the nature of evidence and the nature of science.

You see, the Jerry Coynes of this world see it as their right and duty to protect us from the "confusion" that results from someone like Collins being allowed to spew his polluting, Presbyterian ideas in public. Even more "disquieting" and "distressing" and "scary" is that "Collins is an affable and genial speaker" and "a smart man", and, therefore, even more likely to cause "confusion"! For some reason Coyne neglects to mention that the reactionary fundamentalist Collins, in addition to being affable, genial and smart also plays guitar and rides a motorcycle! I mean, how confusing is that!?

But at least Coyne seems to have remembered, vaguely, something about the first amendment, perhaps from a high school civics class long ago. For whatever reason he declines to follow the logic of his own argument, only just barely refraining from explicitly opposing Collins' appointment. But it is, in my opinion, "disquieting" and "distressing" that Coyne ends with a warning to Collins. Indeed, Coyne wants the world to know that he is sick and tired of "religious scientists who insist on publicly harmonizing their faith with science." And if Collins "continues to go around giving talks" about his religious ideas, then Coyne will no longer "give him the benefit of the doubt."

Is it just me, or is there something disturbingly familiar in Coyne's squeamishness about "religious scientists" who insist on parading their polluted intellectual perversions in public (and on youtube!) where everyone can see, resulting in "confusion"? You see, Coyne is a liberal minded fellow and all, but people have to act responsibly and decently in public, and if they don't, well, then they will no longer be given the benefit of the doubt! Coyne doesn't really mind what Collins believes in the privacy of his own home, but the sight of those "religious scientists" doing, well ... whatever it is that they do, well, it just -- it just isn't right! It's distressing, disquieting, and downright disgusting. Why the next thing you know, those "religious scientists" will be demanding "special rights"!!

John Scheid and scholarly biases in the study of Paganism

In his book An Introduction to Roman Religion, John Scheid ("widely respected as one of the most original as well one of the most authoritative historians of Roman religion" - quote taken from the BMCR review here) writes that

Since the mid-nineteenth century, when it first became the subject of specialist research, the study of Roman religion has been affected by a variety of influences. Christianity, in particular, has often provided the yardstick by which it has been judged. The fact that it had been under the Roman Empire that Christianity developed seemed to justify the generally disparaging judgement passed on traditional Roman ritualistic polytheism. It seemed to support the notion that a 'superior', 'true' religion had triumphed over an 'inferior' one, and to justify writing of the 'conversion' of the Romans.
[pp. 4-5]

Scheid then goes on to list three specific ways in which this Christianizing bias has strongly colored the scholarly study of Roman religion:

1. Roman religion was characterized as "decadent" and "cold": "This approach was very much due to the sway of German idealism." The main idea here is that Roman religion failed to meet people's spiritual needs, thus explaining the supposed ease with which Christianity triumphed. To illustrate this, Scheid quotes Theodor Mommsen's 1854 The History of Rome:

... the forms of the Roman faith remained at, or sunk to, a singularly low level of conception and insight ... [The religion of Rome] was unable to excite the mysterious awe after which the human heart is always longing, or thoroughly to embody the incomprehensible and even malignant elements in nature and in man ... The Latin religion sank into an incredible insipidity and dullness, and early became shrivelled into an anxious and dreary round of ceremonies.
[pp. 6-7]

2. Roman religion was characterized as "swamped with foreign cults". According to Scheid, this view "was pushed to such absurd extremes that even the triad of Capitoline deities (Jupiter, Juno and Minerva), the guardian Gods of the Roman state, were represented as being of 'foreign' origin."

3. Roman religion was characterized as not "pure". According to Scheid, the study of Roman religion has been marred by "the Romantic concept of closed, 'pure' cultures and by the idea of decadence -- as if true Roman religion only existed before its contamination by decadent imports from the outside." In opposition to this "Romantic" vision of Roman religion, Scheid insists that "the idea that one might be able to reconstruct a 'pure', unadulterated state of Roman religion is itself a modern myth."

Scheid is not without his own biases, though. He himself uncritically perpetuates a number of false notions about religion in general, and Roman religion and Christianity in particular. And despite Scheid's correct identification of some of the errors that others have made as a result of using Christianity as a "yardstick", Scheid's own errors have the same cause.

Briefly here are the five most obvious such errors:

1. Roman Paganism "was a religion without revelation." (p. 18)

2. Roman Paganism "involved no initiation and no teaching." (p. 19)

3. "Those who did not enjoy the same social status could not belong to the same religious community." (p. 19)

4. "It was a religion with no moral code. The ethical code by which it was ruled was the same as that which ruled other 'non-religious' social relations." (p. 19)

5. Late antique Roman Paganism was in a state of marked decline. Traditional religion had largely disappeared from most of the populace except for the elites, who had transformed it "into a kind of philosophising religion." (p. 191)

Each of these errors opens up its own quite substantial can of worms. I list them here now, in hopes of being able to return to them later, to at least make it clear that I am not giving some sort of open-ended endorsement of everything Scheid has to say - like any work of solid scholarship, Scheid's book must be approached with a critical eye and mind.

Finally here are two sizeable excerpts from Greg Wolf's BMCR review of Scheid's book (also linked to above), focussing on Scheid's "methodological charter":

Scheid's own stated methodological preference is for an historical anthropology of Roman religion. Study should proceed through careful case studies, each based on "a detailed analysis of all aspects of the ritual" in Dumézilian mode. Those familiar with Scheid's scholarly publications will not be surprised to see that anthropology takes priority over history. Put otherwise, the study of constants precedes the discussion of variables. Where this matters least is in discussion of the rich evidence for cult from the last generation of the Republic and the earliest imperial centuries. The density of evidence, especially for the cults of the City, allows rich interpretations to be developed, especially for scholars such as Scheid (not that there are many others) who are equally happy with Ciceronian theology, votive inscriptions and sanctuary archaeology....

Anthropologists are forever discovering history and historians anthropology. Many anthropologists are now preoccupied above all with the study of change, and have produced detailed critiques of the practices of writing and conceptualization that their predecessors employed to construct "ancestral traditions" and "ethnographic presents". Those of us to whom Scheid's championing of historical anthropology seems the only sane way to go beyond the catalogue in the study of Roman religion, maybe need to import this new anthropological sensibility into our own studies. It is to be hoped Scheid's textbook, with its bold methodological charter will entice many more students to engage in just such a project.

Why they hate Francis Collins

I was curious to see how the crowd over at richarddawkins.net was reacting to the Collins nomination. What I found was that many of them are in agreement with Sam Harris that Francis Collins, and apparently all evangelical Christians, should be barred from holding the position of Director of NIH. Here are a number of the comments left by registered users at Dawkins' "Clear Thinking Oasis" on teh internets:

Monkeygut:
"someone holding such irrational beliefs is not the right person to run the NIH"

Scot Rafkin:
"Yes, he should be disqualified."

Cartomancer:
"It would be nice if scientists were not influenced by the cultures in which they grew up, but sadly such is not the case for all of them. It is those strong cultural predilections that make Collins unfit to head the NIH."

Scot Rafkin (again):
"Collins shouldn't be running the NIH even if he knows the science."

Crazycharlie
"he (Collins) will always be suspect in my opinion. It's a bias on my part I know but I can't help it."

squinky
"I won't belabor my disgust with Collins."

mordacious1:
"I have emailed both of my Senators requesting they vote against this nomination."

phil rimmer:
"If Collins maintains that evolution is purposeful then he sets himself out of the mainstream of scientific theory with this thumpingly unscientific, unproveable view. This is a SCIENTIFIC mark against him and can have repercussions on the decisions he may make."

j.mills:
"it's not just his science but his rationality that's in question."

Steve Zara:
"Francis Collins is a deluded ranting idiot who should not be allowed public use of a stapler, let alone all of USA health policy."

Enlightenme:
"there's risk if this person is that nuts, sooner or later he's gonna prove to be incapable of reason in some other sphere."

gr8hands:
"We're not suggesting a religious litmus test, but a rationality litmus test. A logic litmus test."

As the last comment especially shows, some of these folks are squeamish about what they are proposing, so they insist there is no "religious litmus test", despite the fact that their supposed "rationality" litmus test automatically, and explicitly, excludes Collins on the basis of his religious beliefs.

Richard Dawkins himself weighs in with this: "Isn't he disqualified, not by whether or not he leaves his beliefs outside the laboratory and the committee room, but by the very fact that he is capable of holding such beliefs at all?"

So what is going on here? The Dawkins gang claims to be all about science, truth, reason, etc. But really it is nothing but a cult of personality headed up by a man who modestly thinks of himself as "The most formidable intellect in public discourse." Like all creepy personality cults, Dawkins' is based on blind acceptance of things that are not true. Of these beliefs, perhaps the one most tightly clung to is that "science and religion are incompatible."

To Dawkins, Harris & Co., when Francis Collins says "I believe" that statement alone, coming from a scientist of Collins' stature, constitutes the same kind of existential threat as the one faced by the Pope when Galileo pronounced "it moves". In both cases these are things that an eminent scientist must not be allowed to say, because, well, because ..... Because if such things are said by respected scientists, then they might actually have some validity!

And so Dawkins and Harris and their ilk must lead their droogies in the solemn ritual of the "two minute hate" with Francis Collins playing the part of Emmanuel Goldstein.

The purpose of such an exercise is not to change anyone's mind, but merely to reinforce the already established conditioned response. The bell is rung, the doggies drool.

The rantings of the New Atheists are not intended to appeal to reason, but to emotion. One can only engage in rational debate with those who are capable of reasoning, and by definition, according to Richard Dawkins, those "who are capable of holding such beliefs" as those held by Francis Collins, are thereby pronounced inherently incapable of any kind of reasoning or logic.

Without blinking, much less thinking, the loyal atheists eagerly accept what they are told to accept by their dear leaders: that one of the world's most acclaimed scientists is incapable of "thinking like a scientist"!

And speaking of loyal followers, Sam Harris, who is the Lieutenant Elroy Carpenter to Dawkins' Captain Binghamton, is the guy who really got this ball rolling with his NYT op-ed piece attacking Collins. Harris has actually had Collins in his sights for a while now. For those of you who don't know, he became completely unhinged when he wrote a review of Francis Collins' 2006 book The Language of God.

In the first paragraph of the review Harris calls the book "vile". In that opening paragraph Harris, a man who makes his living by writing, actually wrote this sentence about Collins: "He fails the way a surgeon would fail if he attempted to operate using only his toes." While spewing this kind of histrionic bilge, Harris actually proclaims that he speaks on behalf of all those who care "about the future of intellectual and political discourse in the United States."

In the second paragraph Harris predicts "lasting harm to our discourse" because of the evil Francis Collins and his vile book. Harris' concern for "our discourse" is getting a little creepy at this point - I half expect to hear him say something about an "international conspiracy to cause irreparable damage to our intellectual discourse and to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids". But soon Harris has shifted to the main menu: mocking Collins' religious beliefs more directly.

Collins' personal account of a spiritual turning point in his life seems to be particularly offensive to Harris and many other New Atheists. They are especially appalled at the idea that anyone could find not only beauty in nature, but the image of the Divine in that beauty. Someone really needs to sit these boys down and explain to them the difference between Atheism and Philistinism, and also maybe introduce them to Plato while they're at it.

It is important to be clear about Sam Harris' motive in his review. It is not at all simply a matter of critiquing ideas he does not agree with. Harris is consumed by a Manichean megalomania that would give Girolamo Savonarola a run for his money. In addition to multiple dire warnings about the fate of "our discourse" we are also warned about grave dangers posed to "the stature of science in the United States" and even "the fate of American society" itself. Collins is not just wrong, he is not just guilty of "intellectual misconduct", he has brought discredit on us all: all Americans "should be ashamed" that such books are produced in our country!

Sam Harris, who isn't qualified to teach a remedial science class in middle school, nevertheless believes that he is qualified to weigh in on the intellectual merits of a man like Francis Collins. The sad fact is that Harris is almost completely innocent of any understanding of either science or religion, much less how they do or nor not relate to each other. The same is true, at least with respect to religion, for Richard Dawkins who basically brags about his ignorance of the world's many different religions in his The God Delusion, a book whose title instantly reveals just how myopically ethnocentric Dawkins' grasp of "religion" is.

Harris and Dawkins share a simple agenda: to stigmatize ideas they don't agree with and to ostracize the people who hold those ideas, especially those who dare to actively promote those ideas. In doing so these "New Atheists" besmirch the good name of atheists who have traditionally been champions of religious tolerance and diversity. And the New Atheists actually help provide ammunition to the very Christians they attack, who already whine on cue and howl "intolerance!" anytime someone makes a legitimate criticism of their religion.

And that is a point that shouldn't be lost in all this. There is absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing Francis Collins' religious beliefs. In fact, many of the basic tenets of Christian theology, including (but not limited to) the Trinity, the Incarnation, Creation Ex Nihilo, Eternal Damnation, and Original Sin, are demonstrably illogical and in some cases arguably offensive. But those who can't tell the difference between critiquing a person's beliefs and blacklisting people from government jobs on the basis of their beliefs, are in no position to decry, even if they were able to recognize, the logical or moral failings of others.

Gates' arrest raises serious constitutional issues

A growing number of voices are weighing in on the freedom of speech issues raised by the arrest of Henry Louis Gates for "disorderly conduct".

An analysis piece published in the Los Angeles Times looks at whether or not citizens of the United States of America have "a right to mouth off to the police." On that point, it turns out, opinions differ.

Maureen Dowd starts off her column on the subject with the declaration "Being obnoxious is not a crime."

In this column Christopher Hitchens talks about a recent incident in which he was the target of verbal abuse by a police officer who, Hitchens points out, "was wearing a uniform that I helped pay for." He ends with a characteristic Hitchensian rant:

Race or color are second-order considerations in this, if they are considerations at all. I was once mugged by a white man on the Lower East Side of New York, and then, having given my evidence, was laboriously shown a whole photo album of black "perps" at the local station house. The absurdity of the exercise lay not just in the inability of a half-trained and uncultured force to believe what I was telling them, but in the certainty that their stupidity was helping the guilty party to make a getaway. Professor Gates should have taken his stand on the Bill of Rights and not on his epidermis or that of the arresting officer, and, if he didn't have the presence of mind to do so, that needn't inhibit the rest of us.

In a blog entry at the Huffington Post, civil liberties attorney Harvey Grossman is highly critical of the "middle ground" approach that seeks to place equal blame on Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley:

The parties are apparently going to affirm that perspective with a beer at the White House. This is a calming resolution, but it sends the wrong message about the proper role of law enforcement under our Constitution ....

Everyone knows that as prudent people we ordinarily should not get "lippy" with a police officer, but Professor Gates is not guilty of violating that maxim. He was standing up for his rights. The Constitution protects our right to protest injustice, including on those occasions when we are the victims. Gates was exercising his rights and Crowley violated them.

This is not an abstract issue. Just last Saturday night a Washington DC attorney was arrested, he claims, simply because he said, loudly and within earshot of a group of police officers, "I hate the police." Pepin Tuma claims that one of the officers took particular exception to this constitutionally protected expression of opinion, and not only called Pepin a "faggot" but physically abused him while placing him under arrest for, you guessed it, disorderly conduct.

Finally, in my opinion it is wrong for Hitchens to insist on minimizing the roll that race plays in this. Gates was justified in thinking that he was being "profiled" because he is Black. But even if it could be proved (and its far from clear how one would go about doing this) that Gates was not being profiled, he was completely within his rights to voice that opinion and to do so, in his own home, in a way that the police officer in question didn't like.