Chopra gets brainy

Stop him before he assaults his readers’ minds again: Chopra babbles about consciousness and the brain. Supposedly, this is a response to something in The God Delusion, but Dawkins really doesn’t discuss mechanisms of consciousness much at all (the book is a little bit excessively broad as it is, so I’m relieved he didn’t try to throw that bit of the kitchen sink in there). The most appropriate section I could find in the book was this one:

Human thoughts and emotions emerge from exceedingly complex interconnections of physical entities within the brain. An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles— except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don’t yet understand. If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural. As ever when we unweave a rainbow, it will not become less wonderful.

So Dawkins’ position is that thoughts emerge from complex interconnections in the brain—I’d agree with that. What is Chopra’s interpretation of Dawkins’ words?

[Read more…]

Deepak Chopra slides farther into irrelevancy

Chopra has put up a third installment in his crusade against the ungodly, and my eyes glaze over. I can’t care any more. It’s just too stupid to inspire much concern.

His conclusion about sums it up.

Before proceeding with the next step in refuting the anti-God position, let’s pause to see what responders think. Do you think a random universe of concrete objects colliding by chance is the right model for creation?

At this point, he’s reduced to begging for crumbs of support from the people still reading his drivel, and to making up silly rebuttals to claims no one made. Hey, do you think the universe is a giant billiards table? If you don’t, can you tell me how smart I am? Please?

Remind me why we take these guys seriously at all?

There’s some loony Indonesian witch doctor trying to put a voodoo curse on GW Bush. While I can sympathize with the sentiment, the method is a stupid waste of time (except, perhaps, that it has gotten the witch doctor in the news, so maybe it’s just a high-tech way to drum up business)—and it’s not something anyone could take seriously.

Or so I thought, until a link on Alicublog led me to this fairly well known wingnut, Rod Dreher. He starts out with some offensive macho colonialist remarks, punctuated with a description of this well known scene:

One of my favorite scenes in all of cinema is in one of the Indiana Jones movies, the first I think, when some grand, scimitar-wielding assassin leaps in front of Indy inside a souk, does some whoop-de-do presentation with his sword as a prelude to chopping the American to bits. Indy, unperturbed, laconically pulls out his revolver and blows the dude away.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about that scene—it’s not just a commentary about the superiority of Western technology, but also personifies the casual destruction of non-Western peoples by the European side of the world. But OK, go with the flow, it’s a cartoonish movie that probably doesn’t warrant that kind of cultural concern…and since Dreher started this with the silly witch doctor story, he’s probably talking about the inefficacy of old ideas against new technology and science.

But no…

Nevertheless, I can’t honestly say I don’t believe this stuff can work. If you want to disbelieve in it with ease, don’t hang out with exorcists, or talk with people intimately familiar with the occult. I’ll be praying for the president’s safety, though I would have done so the minute he got there, given how jihadi-infested Indonesia is. I wish he weren’t going, frankly.

What? I read that as Dreher siding with the occultists, supernaturalists, and religious with the Indonesian witch doctor in believing that magic might work. These two procedures are identical in their effectiveness:

Ki Gendeng Pamungkas slit the throat of a goat, a small snake and stabbed a black crow in the chest, stirred their blood with spice and broccoli before drank the “potion” and smeared some on his face.

I’ll be praying for the president’s safety


The one on the left does have a lot more “whoop-de-do”, but both are indistinguishable otherwise—they’re invocations of invisible supernatural spirits. I therefore think it’s appropriate that we take a “crunchy con” like Dreher about as seriously as we do Ki Gendeng Pamungkas—as a kook, a joke, a rather laughable and backwards clown, a silly political punchline. Maybe we can start calling him “Mr Bone-Through-the-Nose”, too. Ooga-booga.

Bad science? It’s OK—just put him in charge of women’s health

Clearly, Bush is not going to drift quietly into oblivion. Majikthise and Feministing report that his administration is appointing a certifiable kook to run the federal program that oversees family planning and reproductive health. His qualifications seem to be that he’s fanatical about abstinence, to the point of making stuff up.

At the Annual Abstinence Leadership Conference in Kansas, Keroack defended abstinence (in an aptly titled talk, “If I Only Had a Brain”) by claiming that sex causes people to go through oxytocin withdrawal which in turn prevents people from bonding in relationships. Seriously.

[Keroack] explained that oxytocin is released during positive social interaction, massage, hugs, “trust” encounters, and sexual intercourse. “It promotes bonding by reducing fear and anxiety in social settings, increasing trust and trustworthiness, reducing stress and pain, and decreasing social aggression,” he said.

But apparently if you’ve had sex with too many people you use up all that oxytocin: “People who have misused their sexual faculty and become bonded to multiple persons will diminish the power of oxytocin to maintain a permanent bond with an individual.” Hear that? Too many sexual partners and you’ll never love again!

I know that oxytocin is thought to have a strong role in bonding, is triggered for secretion in many situations—sex, labor, lactation, etc.—but these claims that you can have permanent depletion of oxytocin levels by too much sex? Never heard of that. I hit the physiology texts in my office; no support. I tried the online databases, and hoo-boy is there a lot of stuff on oxytocin; but nothing I could find to support those claims. Keroack doesn’t seem to have published anything on this subject in the peer-reviewed literature, either—the only source cited for it is something called “A Special Report from the Abstinence Medical Council”. Strangely, the only instances Google turns up of this “Abstinence Medical Council” is as the publisher of this report, and as a part of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, run by Leslee Unruh, unqualified hack (and also organizer of creepy “purity balls”). I think I’m right to suspect the source is ginned-up propaganda for a quack organization.

So there isn’t any evidence for his claims. Is it logical? Oxytocin has complicated and sometimes conflicting effects, so it would be awfully hard to pin down any clear consequences of multiple partners on pair bonding without lots of data, but on the face of it, no, none of what he says makes much sense.

Emotional pain causes our bodies to produce an elevated level of endorphins which in turn lowers the level of oxytocin. Therefore, relationship failure leads to pain which leads to elevated endorphins which leads to lower oxytocin the result of which is a lower ability to bond. Many in this increased state of emotional pain and lower oxytocin seek sex as a substitute for love which inevitably leads to another failed relationship, and so, the cycle continues.

But sex increases oxytocin levels! If he’s postulating that lower oxytocin levels are causal in relationship problems (I’m going with the flow, OK? I don’t buy into the simple chemical explanation of complex relationships myself), then it seems to me that lots of mindless sex would be the corrective prescription.

But then he’s postulating some kind of mysterious depletion or desensitization if you get too much oxytocin. That doesn’t make much sense either, because women are going to get their biggest surges of oxytocin when 1) they go into labor, and 2) they lactate. If ODing on oxytocin diminishes one’s ability to form a permanent bond, then shouldn’t childbirth be a major cause of divorce? There are also oxytocin surges in both men and women during orgasm. Does he also counsel married couples to avoid too much sex? How much is too much? How would he know?

Yeah, he’s waving his hands about interactions between endorphins and oxytocin, but seriously: he’s got no evidence for what he’s claiming, and it doesn’t make sense to claim that brain chemistry on that level senses whether you’ve had sex 10 times with one person or one time each with ten people. He’s making it up as he goes along.

This guy is simply not credible. It looks to me like the Bush administration is trying to throw a sop to the religious right after the defeat of the South Dakota abortion ban by appointing a reliable ideologue with connections to the insane Unruh anti-abortion/abstinence machine to a position where he can interfere with women’s reproductive health. Let’s hope the Democrats will show some spine and squelch this continued nonsense of using fake science to support bad policy.

If I were in his position, I’d ask my students to please shut up

This story about the wingnut history teacher, David Paszkiewicz, just gets more and more amusing and sad. Lippard has comments from students defending the guy, and while I know that a lot of high school students are immature, these are damning. Kearny High School officials ought to be very concerned that their teacher and students put the place in a very bad light.

Deepak Chopra and his magic love god

Chopra.

Deepak Chopra is a fraud who probably makes at least ten times my salary, who gets invited onto talk shows and news programs to spout his opinions, whose books are read by millions as if they actually provide any insight…and the guy has the brains of a turnip. It’s just sad. Have you no shame, Ariana Huffington?

His latest attempt to explain himself (an effort which is to reason as cat-strangling is to art) is a poor critique of Dawkins’ The God Delusion(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). It promises to be part one. When I was in my twenties, I had a very difficult extraction of my wisdom teeth, and that promise reminded me of what the dentist said, after he he had literally knelt on the armrests of the chair, wielding a hammer and chisel against my tooth…”Well, that’s the first one done.” I’m sure you all know that awful sinking feeling as you complete one ugly chore, only to realize that there’s more to come.

There isn’t much to his argument, fortunately, so I’ll just pluck out one representative piece of it. This is a familiar complaint: I call it the “Well, you can’t see love in your fancy microscope, now can you, Dr Smarty Pants?” argument.

Is science the only route to knowledge? Obviously not. I know that my mother loved me all her life, as I love my own children. I feel genius in great works of art. None of this knowledge is validated by science. I have seen medical cures that science can’t explain, some seemingly triggered by faith. The same is true of millions of other people. I know that I am conscious and have a self, even though Dawkins—along with many arch materialists—doesn’t believe that consciousness is real or that the self is anything but a chemical illusion created in the brain. By Dawkins’ reasoning a mother’s love is no more real than God as neither can be empirically quantified.

Ho hum. You can sort of see the wheels turning in the poor sap’s head: he’s got this idea that Science is men in white lab coats with needles and instruments and computers, and he is surely convinced that they had nothing to do with his momma loving him, and of course they didn’t. But then, his naive view of meddling scientism has nothing to do with what the godless and Dawkins are talking about. We’re just saying that love is a natural property between human beings, no deity required. I would just ask him a few questions.

Is he, Deepak Chopra, a human being? Is he real?

Was his mother a human being? Was she real?

Can human beings feel love for one another here in the real world?

The answers, I would hope, would all be “yes” (although with a wacked-out flake like Chopra, one can never tell; he might answer “Unicorns,” “Vibrations,” and “Quantum” to the questions, but at least then I’ll have cause to ask that he be committed.) Then I would say that all people like Dawkins are saying is that we’re dealing with natural phenomena between natural agents in the natural world, so yes, we can observe it, test it, measure it, and believe it…no problem. Dawkins and I are most definitely not denying the existence of love, nor are we advancing this strange idea that other properties of the mind, like consciousness, do not exist.

It’s a bad argument when you have to mischaracterize your opponents that grossly to make a point.

I would also turn his worries around. Do you think a mother’s love and consciousness and art need to be validated by religion? Religion has nothing to do with those experiences; it offers nothing but unfounded, contradictory assertions that it contributes; it adds nothing to our understanding of mind or love or art. All of his complaints can be reversed right back at the superstitious nonsense of religion with far more accuracy than they can be applied to science.

Not that any of this will make the slightest impression on that turnip. He’ll just go on making stuff up, selling lots of goofy books, and appearing on television. And, of course, he’ll go on to inflict on us another vacuous cavil against a book he doesn’t comprehend.

Creationist email

This fairly typical scrap of creationist email made me smirk. Please, if you’re going to be sarcastic and tell me how stupid I am, don’t make the first word of your diatribe grammatically incorrect.

your soo smart… I wish I was as smart as you

Oh you are soo much smarter than everyone else. That’s odd being that your ancestors were monkeys. Too bad you are going to drown soon when mankind melts the polar ice caps. I guess you would have done just as well if we would have used your embryo for research and the rest of us would be much better off too. What a stupid arrogant know-it-all loser you are.

I do think it’s absolutely brilliant that in one short paragraph he managed to express his dull, uncomprehending irritation with four hot-button issues: evolution, global warming, abortion, and fetal research. If only six sentences hadn’t exceeded his attention span, maybe he could have worked in something about gay sex and the Iraq war, too.

Minnesota puts “evil in high places”

Minnesota elected a Muslim, Keith Ellison to the US House of Representatives. If he’d made his religion an issue, I’d be unhappy about this (just as I am about any other pious politician), but he didn’t—even though his opposition did—so I’m not perturbed. He seems to be advocating the right stuff.

Ellison said his race and religion weren’t as important as issues such as Iraq and health insurance for all. “We still have 43 million American uninsured. This is a problem for everyone in the United States,” he said.

He advocates an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq along with strongly liberal views. While Ellison did not often speak of his faith during the campaign, awareness of his candidacy drew interest from Muslims well beyond the district centered in Minneapolis.

If you want to see people blowing their tops, you’re going to have to go to Rapture Ready.

If I had my druthers, every leader of our government would be a Bible- believing, Christ -loving, running -after -God believer.

It is a sad day for America today. A happy day for Terrorist however.

The beginning of the end of Christianity in this nation!!! The fall of great civilizations usually begin with one small event. This very well may be that domino.

This guy is a security risk…BECAUSE he is muslim! He can NOT be trusted with any state secrets in the war on terror. Any information that would benifit the enemy can and will be leaked by this guy.

There’s plenty of paranoia to go around there, and there’s also an excess of irony. These two comments had me laughing.

NOT a good thing. You mark my words…within the year, we’ll hear about an Islamic “prayer room” being set aside within the Congressional building(s).

I have yet to see a Muslim who can seperate their religion from anything. This is not a good thing at all.

Too bad they’re completely oblivious to the fact that they’re just seeing the country through the eyes of every American muslim, atheist, pagan, Hindu, etc. right now.

They really don’t like me

I’m still getting flamage from Dr Mike S. Adams’ fans. This one just happened to tickle me, for some reason. I wonder if I can get that title engraved on my office door?

YOUR WEB TREATMENT OF DR. ADAMS WAS DISCUSTING…

OBVIOUSLY, YOUR REAL TITLE SHOULD BE “ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF LEFTIST INDOCTRINATION”! TYPICAL OF “HIGHER????” EDUCATION.

I think the funniest part of this all-caps, misspelled, strangely punctuated rant and sneer at “HIGHER????” EDUCATION is that the guy’s signature proudly says, “Employee of University of Wisconsin”.