One of the common refrains in my field is that failures of Bayesian reasoning are behind lots of our errors of reasoning in general – Linda the Feminist Bank Teller and the Asian Disease framing problem immediately come to mind. Consider the first problem:

Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations.

Which is more probable?

1. Linda is a bank teller.
2. Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.

And then the second. There will be a short quiz next period.

The England team has withdrawn from the World Badminton Championships in India because of “a specific terrorist threat” made by extremists.

The eight-strong squad pulled out of the tournament, which starts on Monday in Hyderabad, after reports of threats by Muslim extremists Lashkar-e-Taiba.

Lakshar-e-Taiba has shown that, sometimes, terrorism does work.

I cannot fault the English team here for cowardice, and in fact I commend their courage in acknowledging that the safety of their players is more important to them than the interests of whatever groups own and profit from the team. In fact, the failures involved in this event (the failure of Indian society to cultivate and protect a humanist ethos, the failure of the Muslim intelligentsia to combat fundamentalism, the failure of the British and Indian governments to ruthlessly exterminate those who issue such threats, etc.) are too broad to even be meaningful. The real questions here are: what are the short-term effects of L-e-T’s victory in Hyderabad? And what are the long-term effects?

The immediate effects of the withdrawal will probably be, in the long run, small. But in the long run this is another victory for terrorists in their seemingly endless war on modernity. Lashkar-e-Taiba is more of a Kashimiri nationalist organization than a Muslim reactionary militia, and Islam is simply a willing, almost eager puppet-ideology for these people to exploit in their political agenda. The association in the minds of L-e-T is the same tiresome trope that drives nationalist idiocy all over southeast Asia: modernity (read: the “West,” whatever that is) is the enemy. To them, intellectual progress stopped in the mid-7th century when an Arabian bandit cribbed a nationalist ideology of his own from Judaism, Christianity, and local pagan myths. This ideology they will defend to the end.

So, even if the immediate fallout is minimal (I can find no major American news story reporting on this issue), L-e-T is emboldened, and every victory like this is a recruiting slogan. To Indian nationalists and religious fanatics who agree with the objectives of L-e-T (even those who don’t agree with its methods), the urgency in eliminating this group is diminshed because they see it as merely wrong-headed but good-hearted tendency towards the ultimate goal of purging southeast Asia of Western influence and, more potently, of convincing the next generation of fanatics that triumph over modernity is a worthy, attainable goal.

But, the Pope has lifted the dissolution of communion earlier this week, opening a floodgate of reporting on the fact that at least one of the Order’s members, British-born Richard Williamson, is an avowed Holocaust denier, and that the Society at large has a pretty severe reputation for anti-Semitism. (Another of the Order’s members is also a suspected Holocaust denier based on his writings, but the evidence is not as firm for him.)

While the Vatican has distanced itself from the Order’s Holocaust revisionism, calls for explanation have come in from around the world. Fifty members of the United States Congress (all Democrats and all Catholics) wrote an open letter to the Pope expressing “concern” over the rehabilitation of the order and asking that he clarify his views on the Holocaust. German leader Angela Merkel has also chimed in, hoping that the Pope will clear up his exact views on people who deny the mass slaughter of Jews by Nazis in the mid-20th century. It should be noted that Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany.

Apologists for the Pope, such as Bill ‘Secular Jews who hate Christianity control Hollywood‘ Donohue, president of the American Catholic League, have offered their own defenses, mostly complaining that not everyone understands the precise nuance of Church hierarchy.

The Pope could not be reached by this Edger contributor for comment.

In 2006, Bush’s admin created the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands. In the face of severe objections by commercial interests, they banned fishing in about 362,600 square kilometers of the sea. This is an area larger than all the national parks of the States combined.

Ocean fishing has a much larger effect on the seas than was once imagined. Our consumption (and waste) of all food including that from the sea is so high that a conspicuous difference is created in the world’s waters. Needless to say, almost every ecosystem living in the upper 40 meters of water is affected in one way or another by our fishing industry alone. In the non-deep areas of the sea, practices such as bottom-trawling do not even spare life at the sea bed. In the most destructive form of this method, two trawler ships lay out a large net across the sea floor one end being held by each, and then literally sweep the floor clean. Everything that lies in the path of their nets (and that means everything – whether plant, animal or mineral) is captured in the net and pulled out. Of course over 80% of whats collected is junk to the fishermen, and is tossed back into the sea. On the one hand this seems like a good thing, that at least we return the dead plants and fish back to be decomposed, but undoutedly this must greatly imbalance the local ecosystem.

In its latest achievement, the Bush admin created another national monument around some of the American Islands in the Western Pacific Ocean. Covering the Marianas trench, the volcanic arc of the Pacific, and several islands and atolls, a total area of about 500,000 sq. km is now protected. Apparently some of the islands here hold U.S. naval bases and so “unhindered” access will be allowed to their vessels, but without fishing and mineral mining, the local life is bound to excel. Some recent studies have shown that due to increased temperatures and higher carbon density in the waters, the global growth rate of corals has decreased in the past few years. Previously a coral system could revive itself in as short as 10 years, but now at least 4 times that time is expected. So whatever damage has been done in this area as of recent will at least have a chance to recover, no matter how slowly.

The very fact that the area involved is half a million sq. kms. should be reason enough to rejoice. Richard Leakey has expressed concerns over the effectiveness of “national parks” (though he was referring to terrestrial ones). He suggests that isolating already decreased populations to a yet smaller area like in African national parks, creates more competition between its creatures, especially for those that have to re-adjust to slightly modified conditions. This leads to a higher rate of natural extinction than the norm. The concept can be stretched to water national parks also. But in this case, I think the very magnitude of the size concerned lifts most of the dangers that might come with traditional national parks. For reference, consider that the entire island of New Guinea is 786,000 sq. km in total area. Imagine about 3/4ths of that being something like a national park. Certainly this is a positive.

This is not something I’ve said ever before, or I think I’m going to say ever again, but for setting on a true ‘blue’ legacy, thank you Mr. Bush.

There is a BBC article covering the story here and a PEW press release covering the event here. Bush is set to make his public announcement of this on Tuesday evening.

Atheists Should Be Treated Like Trolls – FOX NEWS

Wow. Just wow.

I shouldn’t even look at anything from Fox News because this is so typical. But it’s been a while since I’ve seen a news story with logic this flawed. As the video explains, there was an atheist sign near a nativity scene that was stolen, and the owners of the sign now want to replace the old one with a “thou shall not steal sign”. Fox makes it sound like that by doing this, the atheists are hypocrites. It’s definitely ironic, that’s for sure, but apparently not for reasons anyone at Fox realizes.

Michelle Malkin goes on to complain about atheists a little bit. She suggests that atheists are just being attention whores with all these “christmas wars”, “outbursts”, and “tantrums” (apparently a sign qualifies waging war on Christmas.) 

She then says that atheists are so radical, soon they’ll be saying they’re indispensable.

I don’t know about you, but I find atheists pretty useful. A good majority of the world’s most influential and intelligent scientists are atheists. I’ve never thought about it before, but I realized that, yeah, if every atheist in the world were to just suddnely disappear, there would be problems, especially because so many intellectuals are atheists. Malkin suggests, however, that if every atheist alive just suddenly died… well, it would be no skin off her back.

But get ready, because she’s about to say the most horrible, meaningless, overdone remark you can imagine. Ugh. I hate this, hate this, HATE this line. I hear it in discussions, debates, you name it. People think it’s a valid thing to say. They think that it gives them extra points and automatic credibility. And I’m sure you guys know what I’m talking about.

Immediately following her last comment, Michelle Malkin says:

“Now, some of my best friends are atheists.”

What?! Does she hear the things she’s saying about “some of her best friends”? 

A minute later she says atheists “just can’t leave well enough alone and let people enjoy the season.”

So someone who had their property vandalized should just let it go because it’s Christmas? I mean really. She relates the sign to “making a nusence in the town square.” 

And THEN… oh boy, this is good… that blonde news anchor from the beginning of the video says that if this kind of thing doesn’t stop… Christianity will DISAPPEAR. 

And now for the biggest joke of all.

The solution? Treat atheists like trolls.  Mock them. They’re just attention seekers anyway.

Now I’m not personally one to promote lawsuits for every minute little thing, but how schools let this kind of thing happen is still beyond me. From experience, I know that Colorado is not a particularly religious state. My brief time in the Cherry Creek School District when I was younger was pleasant and looking back on it, I would say the experience was fairly secular. So when a friend told me about this case I was pretty surprised. I’m not sure that a lawsuit is the right solution to this problem, exactly, but that’s not really for me to decide. However I would say that this problem is kind of major, considering that the district is saying that religion is an asset to a child’s development. 

On that note, if you know a child or a parent of a child who attends a school in the Cherry Creek School district, the FFRF urges you to pass this official statement on:

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has a very important challenge regarding the separation of church and state in the Cherry Creek School District in Denver. The lawsuit challenges the District adoption of the “40 Developmental Assets,” of which number 19 is a recommendation of a “religious community” for children. The school district is recommending that children spend at least an hour a week in a church or other religious setting.

In a document specifically written for children, the endorsement reads: “I spend time with my religion.” A poster of a praying child next to this wording is displayed in various ways. The asset appears on a master calendar at the District website and various District documents.

FFRF has uncovered a religious agenda of the “40 Developmental Assets” program (in which the Lutheran Brotherhood, which developed it, cites bible verses which inspire each “asset,” even the secular-sounding assets).

Due to a child of a plaintiff graduating, FFRF is down to a single plaintiff. We are requesting anyone having a child in the school system who supports the separation of church and state to join the suit.

If you have a child in the Cherry Creek School system (or sympathetic friends or relatives with children in the District) and you might be interested in joining our action against this establishment of religion by the school district, then please let me know. Plaintiffs must have children who use the Cherry Creek public schools.

If we are to add additional plaintiffs, they need to be added before 2009. There is no cost involved and very little time required, and you would be helping to ensure we can challenge a violation that is occurring nationwide. The Court has a protective order which keeps parent (and child) names out of the court documents and newspapers. If interested contact me ASAP

Tim Bailey 303.921.0641
Tcsgrv@mindspring.com
Humanists of Colorado

Cheers

Some of you may have been following the development of Sherry Jone’s book The Jewel of Medina. Here’s a quotation from the book’s official website:

A’isha bint Abi Bakr is the daughter of a rich merchant from Mecca in the harsh, exotic world of seventh-century Arabia at the time of the foundation of Islam. When she is married to the Prophet Muhammad at the age of nine, she must rely on her wits, her courage, and even her sword in a struggle to control her own destiny and carve out a place for herself in the community, fighting religious persecution, jealous sister-wives, political rivals, and her own temptations. As she grows to love her kind, generous husband, her ingenuity and devotion make her an indispensable advisor to Muhammad. Ultimately, she becomes one of the most important women in Islam, and a fierce protector of her husband’s words and legacy.

Not exactly one I’m quivering to buy. But, as I highlighted in another article, I don’t have to like Mickey Mouse to defend him from a mullah’s fatwa.

Jones studied Arabic, Islamic history from early sources and was inspired to write on Aisha. This is a wonderful reason to write and she received a contract from none other than Random House. In an effort at obtaining endorsements, Random House sent out pre-pub copies to a number of scholars. One of these was Denise Spellberg, a respected scholar and whose book Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of ‘A’isha Bint Abi Bakr, Jones read. Because of Jones’ liking for Spellberg’s book, she put the scholar on the list for Random House.

However, as the Wall Street Journal reported:

Spellberg wasn’t a fan of Ms. Jones’s book. On April 30, Shahed Amanullah, a guest lecturer in Ms. Spellberg’s classes and the editor of a popular Muslim Web site, got a frantic call from her. “She was upset,” Mr. Amanullah recalls. He says Ms. Spellberg told him the novel “made fun of Muslims and their history,” and asked him to warn Muslims.

Excuse me? “Warn Muslims”? There is a reason why this article in the WSJ is entitled “You Still Can’t Write About Muhamma”. Spellberg is again adopting the position of the parent preventing the younger, “not as intelligent” or “not old enough” child from experiencing a book. Are Muslims not adults? Can they not judge for themselves?

In fact,  this same Shahed Amanullah – the editor-in-chief for altmuslim.com – wrote an article entitled “Muslims have nothing to fear from this book” in The Guardian. This can be seen as a dismissal of Spellberg’s “warning” to Muslims. In this article, he highlights what occurred behind the scenes.

As you may have figured, Random House “decided to pull The Jewel of Medina”. The reasons?

[D]eputy publisher Thomas Perry said the company was advised that the publication might be offensive to Muslims, and that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment.

And thanks to Amanullah’s article, we have a further understanding of it. The flames are doused, wood is thrown and the fires of intolerance are pointed to. Yet the firestarters themselves are to blame, not Sherry Jones. And the fear of Random House is legion. Salman Rushdie wrote a scathing attack against Random House’s decision especially when their reasoning was: “We don’t want another Satanic Verses“.

Naturally, Jones was devastated by Random House’s decision. Says Jones:

[A]fter being told that her book would not be published, [she said]: “I wanted to honour Aisha and all the wives of Muhammad by giving voice to them, remarkable women whose crucial roles in the shaping of Islam have so often been ignored — silenced — by historians.”

Naturally many Muslims are against “Western” writers, or people using “Western techniques” to analyse their history. Accordingly, this “sacred history” is impenetrable to normal sceptical, scientific scrutiny. Reza Aslan in No God but God writes very beautifully about this elastic, vaporous faith that has little hold in the real world. But why? Shouldn’t we be viewing Muslims and their history in the grown-up, real-world context just as we view other “grown-up” things, like politics, philosophy, history and science? I believe this is less patronising to Muslims then constantly attempting to shield them from things that might hurt their feelings. Why treat them like children? I treat them like adults, and so should we all. They are not better or worse, but my equal and I will treat their ideas as such. I will not attempt to demean, mock or dismiss them – but I will certainly not hold the same respect for their ideas.

My friend, Maryam Namazie and the great Paul Kurtz, constantly remind us that: Rights and respect belong to people not ideas! It is in this spirit we progress, not by shielded ignorance and forced dismissal.

Yet, what are we to make of this? Amanullah writes in that same article:

In this case, however, that pattern has been broken. There have been no actual threats of violence from Muslims to date, nor has there been any organised effort by Muslims to stop the publication of the book. The author herself – unlike others who have sought to intentionally provoke and insult – has insisted that her book was written with a profound respect and admiration of the central characters. And the Muslims she has engaged with so far (in three sites online) have treated her respectfully, allowing her to clarify her intentions without censorship.

This was written on the September 9 2008. But consider the events of just 20 days later.

Three men have been charged after the office of the British publisher of the controversial novel The Jewel of Medina was firebombed Saturday.

Luckily no one was injured. We are uncertain about the reasons behind it or whether the men were acting out of Islamic duty^*. Yet I have trouble seeing other reasons for the firebombing of a not-particularly famous publishing house – maybe it was jealous lovers of an employee, maybe it was the wrong address. Sure, we can’t dismiss other reasoning but how likely is that? If evidence were to surface, I would immediately retract this statement and apologise. But as yet, I can think of no reason for doing so.

To add blood to the wound, my own country is not allowing the distribution of the book. The article, on a popular Muslims radio-station’s website, states:

A controversial book by American journalist turned novelist, Sherry Jones entitled Jewel of Medina, has been banned from being distributed in South Africa. This comes as the Johannesburg High Court ruled on Wednesday that the contents were found to be blasphemous.

I have emailed the popular radio-station which deals with Muslim-views, but I highly doubt I will receive a reply. “Blasphemous”? I am particularly averse to this claim. Some people’s feelings will be hurt because of a fictional book. Have we not been through this before. Can anyone say: Satanic Verses?

But it is easy to mock the High Court ruling and the banning of this book. I do not doubt the intelligence of these people, but the problem is this: They are catering for those violent, dangerous men by banning it. They are catering for it in two polarised ways.

1. As Indicative of Violence

By banning it, these extremists have something to be angry about. Anyone who has been to Mosques and heard sermons by mullahs and imams, will know how easy it is to gain coherence through anger. Consider how many books are out there that offend to the greatest degree the Islamic or any faith: The God Delusion, God is Not Great, Why I am Not a Muslim, Why I am Not a Christian, even the novels of Salman Rushdie and Tariq Ali. Some of these books are written with the deliberate intent of mocking and blaspheming against the core tenets of religious belief. Yet they remain on the shelves. So far, no one I know has been hurt because they bought any of these books.

But a novel – a piece of art – a fictional story based on historic events, set to glorify Muhammad and especially his wives – is dubbed blasphemous. No doubt the reasoning would be easy to disclose: It attacks ideas that would hurt the feelings of grown-up Muslims (talk about treating them like children, how patronising). But if they are going to ban a fictional book, written with the intention of respecting the ideas of Islam (mostly), then they must ban the non-fiction, intentionally insulting books of Hitchens, Ibn Warraq and Russell. Otherwise, as is the case at the moment, it is a double-standard.

(JM Coetzee remarks that the truly nauseating aspect on book-banning is the licence to say “art is offensive”. Who is judging art this way?)

2. Protecting the Innocent

And here’s where I struggle. Somehow, I do not see it completely in the light of Orwellian paranoia. I can’t bring myself to be too angry at the fact that someone else is deciding what I can and can not read. Yes, I am upset. Yet, I can not help wonder if they are simply trying to do the right thing. We’ve seen that these extremists will kill and destroy, if they feel someone is upsetting their ideas. We’ve seen that the reason patronising ghouls like Denise Spellberg will “warn” adult Muslims that their feelings will be hurt by a fictional novel – is nothing but a pandering to how extremists want to be treated. Extremist Muslims have shown, in their child-like but horrible responses, how they take fictional books talking about their faith: death, violence, carnage. Extremist Muslims have told us with gunshots as fullstops and death as exclamation marks, how we must treat them.

It is strange that it must be the critics of religion who say “Let us treat them like adults”. I have little respect for the so-called moderate voices in Islam. But the case-in-point remains: Is the High Court ruling attempting to actually protect its citizens from the religious bullies of Islam?

In this case, I think yes. They are doing what they can, but in so doing, are unconsciously pandering to the spoilt brat crying in the corner, that has become extremist Islam. And they keep using it! They will keep on using it if books get banned, if cartoons are not shown, if we are afraid of them.

I believe the solution is to begin treating them as adults and ignore the brats. Sure, we can not engage in discussions when the dialogue uses bullets instead of words, but a way can be reached. How we find that balance I am making my life’s work. And I hope that it will be part of your lives too.

Lets find the human behind the human-bomb, and ignore the child screaming for attention.

* – if anyone has further info, regarding these men’s reasoning please email me.

Right now the high for the info junkies in the U.S. is the fascinating world of the Somali pirates. According to NPR the Somali pirates are disenfranchised fishermen who have lost their income to larger and larger multinational fishing operations off the coast of Somalia.

We all heard of these guys when they hijacked a Saudi oil tanker with about $110 million worth of oil on the ship.

There are more interesting factors coming out about the Somali pirates all the time. Among them is that NPR reported that the Somali pirates are relatively non-lethal compared to other modern pirates, especially south-east Asian pirates, who seem to kill a ship’s crew as a matter of protocol.

The most recent bit of info, which makes writing about the Somali pirates Edger-worthy, is their new enemy: Muslim fundamentalists.

Essentially groups of Muslim fundamentalists based in Somalia have declared piracy against Saudi Arabian financial interests to be anti-Islamic and have vowed to rescue the tanker from the Somali pirates. Both the Islamic Courts Union and a Muslim fundamentalist group called Al-Shabaab have treated the Somali pirates with varying levels of hostility.

I am a byproduct of pop-culture pirate worship.

I have fantasized about space pirates since I was a kid. I love the Pirates of the Carribean, and it is hard for me not to admire these guys on a certain level.

I do not have deontological ideas about theft. I don’t share my liberterian brother and sister’s consideration for property rights as the basis of all civic virtue.

Every now and then when someone gets their crap stolen, I cheer.

When Saudi Arabia gets their oil tanker stolen, and I find out that the thieves are poor people who are considerably non-violent compared to other pirates, I feel a slight sense of cheering for the underdog.

I also feel like these events have revealed a far more insidious piece of information, which is when Saudi Arabia is losing money, Muslim militants get involved.

I try not to give to much credence to conspiracy theories, but ignoring the link between the Saudi establishment and militant Islam is ignoring the obvious.

I wonder how the perceptions of the world will play out as we see the Somali pirates weather the storm that militant Islam threatens.

1. Hoorah for stem cells

The first woman to think of is Claudia Castillo who “has become the world’s first recipient of windpipe tissue constructed from a combination of donated tissue and her own cells.” The collapse of her tracheal branch of her windpipe after a bout of tuberculosis.

Stem cells harvested from the woman’s bone marrow were used to populate a stripped-down section of windpipe received from a donor, which was then transplanted into her body in June.

Five months later and Claudia’s body has showed no signs of rejecting the graft. A “new age” in surgical care, indeed! This spells great things for future patient!

2. Closing the door on HIV/AIDS

My country suffers from a ridiculously high degree of HIV/AIDS sufferers.

Over 5.5 million South Africans are HIV positive, more than any other country. The pandemic primarily affects the sexually and economically active members of society and has left an estimated 1.2 million Aids orphans in its wake.

We have had our own government provide quack therapies and even going as far as “AIDS denial“, with no basis in evidence for either.

Yet, a recent developement is a reason for cautious celebration.

The startling case of an AIDS patient who underwent a bone marrow transplant to treat leukemia is stirring new hope that gene-therapy strategies on the far edges of AIDS research might someday cure the disease.

However, the caution resides. Whilst it opens up a new therapeutic approach, scientists are at pains to reduce the danger to the patients and test subject. It worked so far, on this patient. But it might be a fluke. Yet, the fact remains that he is off his AIDS medication; and has not succumbed to full blown, auto-destruction which normally follows such a secession of treatment.

The mechanism itself is quite incredible, within the body that is “immune” to AIDS. It is essentially a mutation on a person’s cells, which lacks the molecule known as CCR5. CCR5 acts like a “door” for the virus – thus no CCR5, no doors for HIV! The mutation is the lack of CCR5 on a cell. Treatment has already focused on blocking the site of CCR5 (See the excellent illustration in the article itself).

This mutation has happened to many who seem to be waste-deep in HIV danger. It was identified amongst gay men, who had hundreds of sexual partners who were immune. It was also identified amongst African women, Chinese and others.

Not only that, but a possible future “elixir of youth” also helps to fight HIV – or at least provide the body with better fighting equipment to forestall it.

This all makes me very happy . I am proud to consider myself of the same species that has created such brilliant schematics for a restored life. Hoorah for science!