The journal Medical Hypotheses is a weird creature: it has no peer review and publishes, to put it generously, ‘speculative’ papers. At least it’s entertaining in an “OMG they say what?” sort of way. A fun blog called NCBI ROFL, which highlights some of the weirdness that pops up in scientific abstracts, has made this Bruce G Charlton week — Charlton is not only the editor of Medical Hypotheses, he’s a frequent contributor (which makes one wonder…since the journal has no peer review, and the only gatekeeper is the editor, Bruce G Charlton, has Dr Charlton ever received a rejection from the journal?). They have tapped into a rich vein of weirdness.

The Monday entry is this recent paper.

Genospirituality: genetic engineering for spiritual and religious enhancement

The most frequently discussed role for genetic engineering is in relation to medicine, and a second area which provokes discussion is the use of genetic engineering as an enhancement technology. But one neglected area is the potential use of genetic engineering to increase human spiritual and religious experience – or genospirituality. If technologies are devised which can conveniently and safely engineer genes causal of spiritual and religious behaviours, then people may become able to choose their degree of religiosity or spiritual sensitivity. For instance, it may become possible to increase the likelihood of direct religious experience – i.e. ‘revelation’: the subjective experience of communication from the deity. Or, people may be able to engineer ‘animistic’ thinking, a mode of cognition in which the significant features of the world – such as large animals, trees, distinctive landscape features – are regarded as sentient and intentional beings; so that the individual experiences a personal relationship with the world. Another potentially popular spiritual ability would probably be shamanism; in which states of altered consciousness (e.g. trances, delirium or dreams) are induced and the shaman may undergo the experience of transformations, ‘soul journeys’ and contact with a spirit realm. Ideally, shamanistic consciousness could be modulated such that trances were self-induced only when wanted and when it was safe and convenient; and then switched-off again completely when full alertness and concentration are necessary. It seems likely that there will be trade-offs for increased spirituality; such as people becoming less ‘driven’ to seek status and monetary rewards – as a result of being more spiritually fulfilled people might work less hard and take more leisure. On the other hand, it is also possible that highly moral, altruistic, peaceable and principled behaviours might become more prevalent; and the energy and joyousness of the best churches might spread and be strengthened. Overall, genospirituality would probably be used by people who were unable to have the kind of spiritual or religious experiences which they wanted (or perhaps even needed) in order to lead the kind of life to which they aspired.

So…he thinks spirituality is a biological phenomenon, which he naively believes can be switched on and off by tinkering with genes. And he thinks this would be desirable.

He’s a very strange fellow: that rather cynical abstract was written by a Christian. He’s also a Christian who thinks that religion is adaptive and atheists are delusional. That article is so full of targets for derision it left me bewildered and confused — I could do a whole week of paragraph-by-paragraph mockery of that one piece of absurdity (don’t worry, I don’t think I will, too much serious work to do right now.)

For example, I couldn’t read this bit by Charlton without marveling at its self-referential nature, and the apparent obliviousness of the author to it all.

However, there must be a deeper psychological reason than short-termist hedonism why so many intelligent people have chosen the maladaptive trait of Atheism. I have recently published a theory trying to explain the phenomenon of ‘Clever Sillies’. Clever Sillies are people whose professional and expert attainments may be at the highest level, while their psychological and social beliefs and behaviours are just silly – I was thinking in particular of the prevalent lunacies of Political Correctness among the ruling elites. In essence, I argue that the root of the problem is that high intelligence often brings with it a tendency to overuse intelligence – even when ‘instinct’ is a better guide to reality.

What can I say? Bruce Charlton is an educated MD, a professor of theoretical medicine (OK, that title is ripe for a joke in itself), and is a journal editor. He’s definitely a very clever fellow.

I laughed at the God Equation. The author writes to assure me it is very scientific. I laugh some more.

Dear Dr. Myers,

I didn’t believe the equation either. I am a skeptic and a great fan of people like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc. so please don’t tar this with the pseudoscience brush because it’s not appropriate in this case.

I’d ask you to consider the following. In the equation, pi divided by 0.0123456789 equals the 21 cm wavelength for the hydrogen fine transition.

So the equation is frequency of hydrogen fine transition times wavelength of hydrogen fine transition equals the speed of light – a straight down the line 100 per cent correct physics equation.

The Thoms (or megalithic yards) are just a conversion factor that occurs on both sides of the equation and so can be taken out of the equation by simple arithmetic. They are in the equation because this directly relates the equation to the polar circumference of the Earth.

I hope this makes it clear. I understand the implications are mind-boggling. But the equation is simple physics and will become mainstream knowledge.

If you’re not acquainted with the physics, please get a friend knowledgeable in physics to check this.

Kind regards,

David

Several people have notified me of this amusing editorial by the editor of the Colorado Springs Gazette, which compares me to a diseased pig and insists on addressing me as “Little Paul” throughout. It’s poorly written and mostly pointless (well, other than its demand that we censor youtube), and I think there is only one virtue to it. It gives Bryan Appleyard an example to follow in his ongoing efforts to improve his writing.

I am deeply, horribly ashamed. On the principle that one’s reputation is known by the quality of one’s enemies…I have the pathetic Bryan Appleyard acting as if he is my nemesis. You know a post is worthless when it begins with “Please note that at the end of this post P.Z.Myers will still be a jerk and I still won’t be,” and then goes downhill from there. But then, Andrew Sullivan thinks there’s some substance to Appleyard’s bilious nonsense, so I tried hard to see if there was some reasonable argument somewhere in his pouty whine. There isn’t; it’s mostly excuses for why his science writing is such godawful tripe and wrong-headed babble.

His big point, if he has one, is that evolution has become an ideology. In that he shares common ground with the ideologues of the Discovery Institute, and also reveals that he doesn’t know anything about science.

The big point is that […]ideology has migrated from politics to religion and science. This is bad for religion and very bad for science.
The minor reason it’s bad for science is it generates public confusion and mistrust. So, for example, mention intelligent design and the likes of Myers will be hurling abuse. But I gather from reading John Gribbin’s superb exposition In Search of the Multiverse that ID is, in fact, a perfectly respectable hypothesis among some physicists – the designer would not be a deity but a more technically advanced civilisation. So the world is ‘designed’ then? ‘No!’ howls Myers; ‘Maybe,’ murmur the physicists.

ID is also a perfectly respectable hypothesis among some biologists — the ones on the crank side of the spectrum. Most of the physicists I know are fairly sensible on the matter, and reject Intelligent Design creationism; the physicists aren’t murmuring “Maybe,” they’re walking quietly away from loons like Appleyard.

I thought Gribbin’s book was awful. Basically, he believes that if there are multiple universes, then all things are possible…and that maybe our universe is the creation of semi-god-like beings in another universe. This is not convincing. It’s simply deistic wishful thinking. Citing Gribbin as representative of common thought in the physics community is a bad idea.

It also misses the point. Sure, you can invent science fiction scenarios — the Big Bang was a science experiment in a grander metaverse, life was concocted in an alien laboratory and inoculated into our oceans 4 billion years ago — but these fantasies ignore the reality. Life was not designed, because we have the evidence of the processes that formed it and we see the relationships in living forms today. Appleyard is comparing hypothetical speculation about gaps in our knowledge with the concrete facts of life’s evolution on earth and pretending that his guesswork about physics is as good as the solid body of evidence in the scientific literature…of which he is completely oblivious.

This isn’t ideology. It’s the simple, plain fact that we can see in the molecules of our body our relationship to the weirdest marine annelid you can find, and that we can trace eons of history without invoking a single angelic intervention, yet can still explain in rough outline our origins. We are the progeny of worms, not clever cosmonauts from another dimension. Any physicist who tries to argue that ID is ‘respectable’ is an arrogant ignoramus with no knowledge of biology; even Gribbin is not arguing for intelligent design, but for a rather fuzzy version of pseudoscientific deism.

Not that Appleyard would be able to tell the difference. He’s a fellow whose mind is as muddled as a plate of scrambled eggs, and he thinks this is a virtue.

I was in the middle of writing on Friday when I noticed, as if for the first time, a habit of mine. For pace and economy I often set up a point of view without reservation or comment from me. Thus, for example, ‘Hitler was right. Arnold Bonkers says….’. This seems to confuse people. Furthermore, I tend to write hybrid pieces – typically about 20 per cent column and 80 per cent news feature. The latter involves transmission of information, but not for the purpose of illustrating my own approval of disapproval of something or other. This further confuses people. On top of that, I had to shorten the Darwin piece that all this fuss was about by about 40 per cent at the last minute. It happens. This required me to tighten up my economy and pace habit even further. This definitely confuses people.

To be clear: I have no problem with the plausibility and coherence of a Darwinian explanation of the development of the eye. Indeed, to be honest, I don’t care one way or another: it’s not on my agenda or within my realm of competence, though I do regard myself as free to report the views of those who do find it unconvincing.

So evolution isn’t within his ‘realm of competence,’ and he has just noticed that his writing style is confusing, but he insists on writing about the subject. That’s a plain admission that a) he’s ignorant, and b) his writing sucks. Which is what I’ve been saying all along.

At last! We agree on something!

Powerful stuff, that porn. The Indonesian Minister of Communication and Information (who must be very smart to have a title like that) has determined that recent natural disasters in his country are a consequence of the ubiquity of pornographic DVDs. His logic is something like this: 1) it is a fact that one can easily buy porn in local markets, and 2) it is a fact that the Padang earthquake killed over a thousand people and that the Aceh tsunami devastated an entire region, therefore 3) it is a fact that the two are causally related. Well, point 3 is a little shaky, but 1 and 2 are so strong it must make up for the absence of a causal relationship. Right? Right?

Anyway, you must all now unplug the internet and go through your magazines and DVDs and dispose of anything that might stir the wrath of gods. I’ll be sorry to see you all go, but it’s better this way than that you all end up drowned or crushed or blown to Oz or something. Unless, of course, you have slightly more rigorous expectations of evidence than the Indonesian Minister of Communication and Information…

(All the trolls should now scurry to hide in their basement while the regulars hang around.)