Why Carl Sagan is awesome – post script.

One more point about Carl Sagan and Cosmos – in the last episode, Sagan makes explicit the connection he appears to draw throughout the series between the value of critical thinking in the scientific realm and the value of critical thinking in all human endeavors. While standing in a recreated library of Alexandria, he asks why the knowledge of the Ancients failed to bring us swiftly into the Enlightenment and instead disintegrated into the Dark Ages, only to reemerge hundreds of years later.

I cannot give you a simple answer, but I do know this. There is no record in the entire history of the library that any of the illustrious scholars and scientists who worked here, ever seriously challenged a single political, or economic, or religious assumption of the society in which they lived. The permanence of the stars was questioned – the justice of slavery was not.”

I’ve written several times before on the connection between atheism and social justice, the skeptical movement and other political movements. I’ve argued that anyone who cares about the religiosity of a society also needs to care about politics – that the two are intertwined and cannot be untangled, and that perhaps it is even the political and social arrangements of a society that have the greatest impact on the level and destructiveness of its religiosity. I can’t say how pleased I was to see Sagan invoking the same point – science without a social conscience cannot justify itself all on its own, and if we challenge the irrationality of theism but not of oppression, it is quite possible we will, in the long run, accomplish very little indeed.

A quick review of Cosmos

Over the past few weeks I have been watching Carl Sagan’s epic 13 episode series, Cosmos (which is also a book). Of course, I found it to be awesome in multiple ways, and I wouldn’t be adding much to go into detail about how well Sagan invokes scientific wonder or how articulate and inspiring his language is. However, I’ll hazard a few observations based on my perspective as someone who works in the humanities.

My favorite thing about Cosmos is its breadth – while clearly, science and the physical nature of the universe is the focus of the series, Sagan takes long detours to buttress scientific exploration with the history of science. We learn about the library of Alexandria, the Heikegani crabs of Japan and the legend that produced them, the life story and struggles of Johannes Kepler, the decoding of the Egyptian hieroglyphs, and much more.

This extensive storytelling has not only the effect of heightening the drama and effectiveness of the series, but of also giving it a feel of being almost as much a historical documentary as a scientific documentary – and therefore, science is not presented as an isolated, bracketed off enterprise that has no relationship to the human spirit or the human story. As a historian, I was surprised and delighted to learn history from this series I never knew before. These days, it seems most science documentaries stick rigidly to the science being explored, although there are a few that put a lot of effort into dramatizing the lives of the scientists they explore. But Sagan’s series has the intellectual creativity and courage to make connections where none are obvious – such as the extended segment on Egypt’s hieroglyphs that feeds into Sagan’s contemplations on communicating with an alien civilization.

As a lover of classical music, I also thoroughly appreciated the extended uses of some of the best classical music ever written. At one point we are treated to a depiction of all of evolutionary biology passing before our eyes in a few minutes, with a beautiful piece by Bach playing in the background. Beethoven and other well known composers also make appearances, always in places where they seem entirely appropriate. It is almost as if Sagan was aiming to make Cosmos not just a reflection on human scientific achievement, but a meditation on the entirety of human culture, accomplishment, and beauty.

One more thing about Cosmos – it’s rather funny, in a loveable way. From the somewhat frightfully bare “spaceship of the imagination” to the frequently awful synthesizer music, its very earnestness makes you a little self-conscious and snarky at first. But before you know it, you’re getting sucked into the spacescapes and the extended keyboard notes wailing in the background – and there you are, feeling all the cheesy wonder and appreciation you were supposed to. It is stealthy, and it gets under your cynical skin. Now that is quite an accomplishment – and I’m very sorry that I’ve finished the series and there are no more Cosmos evenings ahead of me.

Investigating Woo: Spring Forest Qigong “research”

This is a follow-up to my previous post investigating a study from the Mayo Clinic in collaboration with the University of Minnesota claiming that external qigong, a form of ancient Chinese medicine, is an effective treatment for chronic pain. My critique apparently got on the nerves of at least one person, Drew Hempel, qigong enthusiast and woo extraordinaire, who offered his assurance regarding the validity of the study and its methodology. Sadly, it’s not assurance that I am after—it’s evidence. However, maybe I was wrong; maybe the study was academically rigorous and its conclusions actually sound. After all, I am only an undergraduate (despite the fact that, in a recent blog post, Hempel incorrectly described me as a “university senior biologist”), and I admittedly only read the abstract.

Mr. Hempel has posted on internet blogs and forums statements such as the following:

Last fall there was a new study done by doctors from one of the top rated hospitals in the world — the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. The study proved the existence and the efficacy of external qi (paranormal energy) healing transmission. . . O.K. I want to emphasize the implications of this study. This is ground-breaking official proof of something that undermines the very foundation of science.

Such extraordinary claims require even more extraordinary evidence, and Hempel believes, along with many, many others, that this evidence exists in a study performed at the Spring Forest Qigong center in Minnesota, published in The American Journal of Chinese Medicine.

After Hempel’s criticisms of my post and his request that I not “give up so easily” in my search for truth (I suggest Hempel do the same), I decided to check whether or not my university subscribed to the specific journal in order to obtain the full text of External Qigong for Chronic Pain (2010), the study that had supposedly demonstrated the efficacy of qigong. Much to my surprise, they do, and I found it. While reading the study, my initial criticisms based on the abstract alone became more and more cemented. I am now-more than ever-convinced that the study is absolutely bunk from the top down. The flaws are numerous, and I have included them below in point form, followed by a more in-depth criticism regarding the methodology behind each.

1. Flawed sampling method.

2. Lack of adequate controls.

3. Subjectivity in data collection.

4. Reliance on anecdotal evidence.

Continue reading…

Nietzsche and Atheism

Preface: The below post is inspired by a course on Nietzsche I am currently the teaching assistant for; however, Nietzsche has always been my favorite philosopher. The reasons why, however, are complex – no, I don’t agree with everything he says, far from it – and wonderfully, Nietzsche actually presents a great challenge to us in the atheist and skeptical movements; an opportunity to think in the most critical ways possible about why we care about these issues at all.

———————-

God is dead, Nietzsche famously wrote. Based on these three words, one might assume that Nietzsche would be an atheist’s best friend. Think again.

Nietzsche was, of course, himself an atheist, if we are simply talking about whether or not he believed in God. But he harshly criticized the group of people he labeled “atheists,” along with scientists and rational skeptics. Why? If we are going to understand that, we first have to understand Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity.

Nietzsche believed that Christianity grew out of the resentment, or ressentiment, of the weak in society – hence his famous phrase, “slave morality.” The genius of Christianity, according to Nietzsche, is its ability to take the will to power – which simply means the universal urge of man to express his spirit and impress himself upon the world – and turn it against itself. The values of Christianity, as captured in the Sermon on the Mount, celebrate humility and weakness – they argue, in other words, that the weak is good and the strong is bad. Moreover, Nietzsche argues, the priests of Christianity took the suffering of the masses and explained to them that they themselves were responsible for this suffering – the doctrine of original sin, obviously, clearly says as much. Moreover, not only does Christianity preach a worthlessness of human beings and consequently, the worthlessness of the earthly world itself, but it posits a self-sacrificing God (in the form of Jesus) that had to suffer and die for all these worthless human beings – thus, the doctrine of the crucifixion, rather than alleviating any guilt believers may suffer from, only increases it by adding to the heavy burden of debt we all owe to God. The consequence has been hundreds of years of scrupulous self-denial and the shaming of all our noble, passionate instincts – the will to power turned in wretched self-loathing against itself.

So this all sounds rather unpleasant, and I think it is in this highly psychological analysis of Christianity that some of the most brilliant (and accurate) insights of Nietzsche can be found. But why, then, would Nietzsche be critical towards atheists, scientists, and skeptics? Wouldn’t he see their focus on the physical, real world, and their rigorous skepticism of Christian theology as freeing, as liberating? Why in the world would he actually posit the opposite - that atheism and science, rather than being a way out of Christianity, are actually the product of Christian values - indeed, are Christian values in their most refined form?

Continue reading…

Can belief kill? - Exploring the mind-body connection

Several years ago, I was dozing in and out of an afternoon nap in the back of my car. While chatting away with the endless dialogue that often typifies my dream experience, I realized that my eyes were open, and I could see my arm and my hand and the back of the front seat in front of me. I tried to move – but nothing happened. I tried again, and yet I remained unable to budge. It felt as though I was trapped inside a rock.

My first thought was that I was dying. For a brief moment this seemed like a mere interesting observation, “Huh, maybe I’m dead” but then as the seconds ticked away my inability to move started to build up panic inside me. Finally, I focused all my energy on being able to move and in one final push, was able to suddenly burst awake, sitting straight up. That was my first experience with sleep paralysis.

Visitations from witches are another traditional interpretation of sleep paralysis.

Anyone who has experienced sleep paralysis knows it is a deeply terrifying experience, especially the first time it happens. However, once I looked up what had happened to me, and learned it is a universal, and perfectly normal, experience, my future encounters with sleep paralysis were not nearly half so bad. True, they were still frightening and frustrating, but at least I could think calmly to myself in the midst of them, “this is sleep paralysis, and it will pass.”

But what if you didn’t know what sleep paralysis was? And even worse, what if the explanation you did have understood sleep paralysis as a visitation from an evil spirit, or a demon? Traditionally, this is how cultures of various stripes have accounted for sleep paralysis – in the Christian tradition it is often known as “the devil sitting on your chest.”[1] Now this is an explanation that is likely to make the experience of sleep paralysis not less, but considerably more horrifying. Indeed, perhaps this could even contribute to your horror so much, that it might actually kill you – that, at least, is the argument of a new book by Shelley Adler, called Sleep Paralysis: Night-mares, Nocebos, and the Mind Body Connection.

Continue reading…

Curiosity: on hope and death

As you probably know, the new Discovery Channel show Curiosity recently gave their first episode over to Stephen Hawking, who argued that the laws of physics sufficiently explain how we could have gotten a “universe from nothing” and thus, do away with the need for a god. The main program was followed by one of those adorable panels where people who have been pre-screened to not be very controversial or upsetting are invited on to advocate confusion and promote quaint ideas that wouldn’t survive more serious intellectual rigor.

But I am being uncharitable – Sean Carroll did pretty well, actually. However as is usual with these sorts of “discussion panels,” a whole host of Very Bad Arguments were allowed to fly because the unfounded assumptions they were based on were never challenged. I’d like to address the theme that bothered me the most.

John Haught, the representative theologian on the panel, first argued, while claiming religion is not so much concerned with questions about the origin of the universe or of a first cause, that religion is instead primarily about the question of “is there in reality a basis for hope?”

What’s the problem with that? The problem with that is that it presupposes that we are in need of hope – that in our natural, secular state we are all hopeless – and religion comes in to supply us with hope. So I ask, hopeless about what?

Continue reading…

“Origin of Christianity”: The Best Documentary Ever.

Origin of Christianity is a French film released in 2003. Bringing together top Biblical scholars from all over the world, it explores the formation of Christianity from the time of Jesus to a few centuries after his death. Because it treats the birth of Christianity as a historical, rather than a theological event, it caused a decent amount of controversy even in fairly secular France. But it is without doubt the best documentary, on any topic, I have ever seen.

I should warn you that the things that make Origin of Christianity so great to a history nerd like me might make it mind-numbingly boring to you. It is not like most documentaries – there are no reenactments, and it lacks even the presentation of paintings and landscapes which, in most documentaries, the camera slowly zooms into or out of during narration. Rather, it consists of hours of listening to top scholars discuss chapters of early Christian history, all of them in front of a blank black background. The only visuals we get are of ancient church manuscripts, although these are coupled with the delightful background noises of libraries and archives. In other words, you need to be rather interested in early Christian history to find this film engaging. You have been warned.

But if you want to learn about the early church, watching all ten episodes of this film is probably the easiest way you could possibly do so. The topics selected are of central importance to Christian doctrine and the subsequent unfolding of Christian history. The scholars are engaging, articulate, and diverse in their opinions. Indeed one of the great things about the film is that it displays the process of historical inquiry and debate – while there is general consensus per episode on important points, there are some issues where conflicting viewpoints of various scholars are explicitly contrasted to one another. Thus Christianity is treated not only as a matter of historical – as opposed to theological – interpretation, but as a matter of historical interpretation which, on many points, allows no one to be completely, comfortably sure they have discerned the complete truth.[1]

Continue reading…