Literature

Nobel Prize Notes

milhayser — Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:59:30 +0000

Nobel Prize Notes

On Pharyngula, PZ Myers examines the work of Yoshinori Ohsumi, who was awarded the prize in Physiology for his studies of autophagy in yeast. Autophagy, or self-consumption, is a strategy used by all cells to recycle malfunctioning bits of themselves, or to survive during times of starvation. But autophagy is also involved in cancer metastasis and may play a role in other diseases such as Parkinson's. Meanwhile, the Nobel prize in Physics did not go to LIGO and the observation of gravitational waves as widely expected. Instead it was divided between three individuals for "theoretical discoveries of topological phase transitions and topological phases of matter." Ethan Siegel writes that their work has "led to a whole suite of new research, and is leading towards breakthroughs in electronics and quantum computing." As for the prize in Literature, Martin Rundkvist says "I would have an opinion on Bob Dylan’s latest prize if I thought the Swedish Academy’s taste in literary matters was a big deal. And if I cared one way or the other about Bob Dylan."

milhayser Fri, 10/28/2016 - 07:59

Tags

Misc

Autophagy

bob dylan

Cancer Metastasis

The More Things Change...

jrosenhouse — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 01:31:29 +0000

The More Things Change...

One benefit of spending a lot of time lying down waiting patiently for your back to feel better is that you get a lot of reading done. I just polished off the novel Main Street by Sinclair Lewis, published in 1920. (Short review: Enjoyable, but not as good as Elmer Gantry.) Anyway, the main story follows Carol Kennicott, a city-girl who finds herself living in the small town of Gopher Prairie, MN, after marrying the town's doctor. She finds it hard to adjust to the insularity of her new home.

The following paragraph jumped out at me as being pretty timeless. Carol is at a family gathering, and has been a bit too outspoken about her liberal opinions. Remember, this was written in 1920:

In the manner of one who has just beheld a two-headed calf they repeated that they had “never heard such funny ideas!” They were staggered to learn that a real tangible person, living in Minnesota, and married to their own flesh-and-blood relation, could apparently believe that divorce may not always be immoral; that illegitimate children do not bear any special and guaranteed form of curse; that there are ethical authorities outside of the Hebrew Bible; that men have drunk wine yet not died in the gutter; that the capitalistic system of distribution and the Baptist wedding-ceremony were not known in the Garden of Eden; that mushrooms are as edible as corn-beef hash; that the word “dude” is no longer frequently used; that there are Ministers of the Gospel who accept evolution; that some persons of apparent intelligence and business ability do not always vote the Republican ticket straight; that it is not a universal custom to wear scratchy flannels next the skin in winter; that a violin is not inherently more immoral than a chapel organ; that some poets do not have long hair; and that Jews are not always pedlers or pantsmakers.

“Where does she get all them the'ries?” marveled Uncle Whittier Smail; while Aunt Bessie inquired, “Do you suppose there's many folks got notions like hers? My! If there are,” and her tone settled the fact that there were not, “I just don't know what the world's coming to!”

Anything in that sound familiar?

However, for a succinct summary of the less savory side of small-town life, I doubt if Victor Hugo's blunt statement, from the opening pages of Les Miserables (published in 1862) has ever been topped:

M. Myriel had to submit to the fate of every new-comer in a small town, where there are many tongues to talk, and but few heads to think.

jrosenhouse Sun, 11/25/2012 - 20:31

Tags

Literature

Baptists wedding ceremony? Must not be in Lake Wobegone, dude.

@Bilbo: Not everybody who settled in Minnesota came from immigrant stock. I would assume that some Americans moved there from points east, and some of them would be Baptists.

Yes, much of that is familiar. After my parents retired they moved to a medium-sized town in eastern Washington state, which politically is like Oklahoma with better scenery (the state's liberal reputation is due to Seattle and other populated areas west of the Cascades). The bit about flannel is new to me, but I recognize the rest of it as still being part of small town life in much of the US generally, and eastern Washington in particular.

It's even true that people say "dude" less now than, say, thirty years ago. Yet I can't help but assume that it wasn't used in the modern sense in 1920.

One noticible difference is that teetotaling isn't part of mainstream conservative Protestantism anymore. Indeed, one minor obstacle for the Romney campaign was that his "weird" and "unchristian" religion would forbid him from having a beer with voters.

Meanwhile, I don't know of anyone who thinks out-of-wedlock kids are somehow "cursed" or in any way to be despised. Modern conservative Christians usually just lament divorce and teen pregnancy rates (rwhile signifigantly contributing to both) and that the kids are just worse off, not supernaturally marked with evil.

The bit about capitalism and Baptist ceremonies in Eden struck me as so much satiric hyperbole; what does it even mean to descirbe the economics of two people?

I grew up in a tiny village in Minnesota not unlike Gopher Prairie. Lewis wrote truth.

My father came from such a town. His parents divorced when he was a child( This was in the late '20s ). Of course, a divorced woman automatically became a person of ill-repute and so none of the local kids were allowed to play with my dad...only those of the wrong sort did.

Lenoxus,

I might be wrong about this, but at one time the term "dude" was used in the late part of the 19th century in the Western and Midwestern US for a person who was young and inexperienced, ie the new guy at the ranch would have been a "dude". I'm guessing that the usage of the term as an informal greeting or synonym for man had not yet developed by 1920.

@Sean: According to Wikipedia, the term "dude" was applied in the early 20th century to Easterners seeking to work as ranch hands (often temporarily) in the West. This usage survives in the term "dude ranch" (which is what I Googled to get the Wikipedia link)--such ranches still exist, if the search results are to be believed, in places as far east as New Hampshire as well as the West. This usage may have evolved from the usage you suggest: such people were more likely to be called "greenhorns" by the early 20th century, which may be what Lewis was referring to in the quoted passage.

I can see a reasonably straightforward evolution which converts the early 20th century usage to the modern usage, but I don't know if that is what actually happened.

Much of Sinclair Lewis's stuff seems timely even today. For a really modern-feeling scare, read his "It Can't Happen Here."

Ray Bradbury

jrosenhouse — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 13:20:42 +0000

Ray Bradbury

By now I'm sure you have heard that Ray Bradbury has died. I can't say that I was ever a huge Bradbury fan. I recall being a bit bored with Farenheit 451 when I tried reading it in middle school, but I was probably a little too young to appreciate it. I enjoyed The Martian Chronicles, though I read it so long ago that I only remember bits and pieces of it today.

But I did have a chance to see Bradbury speak when I was in college, and he said something that didn't mean much to me at the time, but which now has considerable resonance. You see, I am the sort of writer who is constantly down on himself for how poorly he writes. I can barely stand to open up any of my books, since the only things are all the clunky sentences I wish I had phrased differently.

Which is why I remember with a chuckle what Bradbury had to say on this matter. He said, “Some writers are constantly putting themselves down and are incredibly critical of their own work. Not me! I think everything I write is brilliant!”

jrosenhouse Thu, 06/07/2012 - 09:20

Tags

Literature

The Virginia Antiquarian Book Fair

jrosenhouse — Sat, 05 May 2012 18:02:49 +0000

The Virginia Antiquarian Book Fair

As swamped as I've been for the past two weeks, I nonetheless found time to visit the Virginia Antiquarian Book Fair on April 28. It was held at the Library of Virginia in Richmond.

The drive to Richmond is a little over two hours each way, and I had to leave the fair early to hold a Saturday office hour for my students with Monday finals (are you impressed by my dedication?), but it was well worth the trip.

Somewhere between thirty and forty book dealers were represented.

Unsurprisingly, there was a heavy emphasis on American history, especially books related to the Civil War. There was also a lot of general fiction on hand. Science books were less well represented, but I am a skillful browser and managed to ferret out some choice items.

For example, I visited the display for DeFreitas Books, run by Wilfrid DeFreitas and his wife Susan.

They were visiting from Montreal, Canada. And I thought I had a long drive! They really know their books, and I had a pleasant conversation with both of them:

They were certainly well-stocked with Darwin books:

Among their offerings was a first U. S. edition of The Descent of Man:

I was drooling, but at $850 it was a bit out of my price range. I did, however, pick up a few items from them, including this interesting volume:

Upon seeing the title, my first thought was of that miserable creationist tract from Phillip Johnson. Happily, this was something else entirely. It seems that “Democritus” is the pseudonym of F. Raymond Coulson. Darwin on Trial at the Old Bailey is a play based on an actual trial in London, in which a book dealer was brought up on charges for selling Havelock Ellis's book Sexual Inversion. The play opens with the clerk of the court announcing the charges:

Alexander Gilbert, you are indicted for being a person of a wicked and depraved mind and disposition, having unlawfully and wickedly devised, contrived, and intended, to vitiate and corrupt the morals of liege subjects of our Lady the Queen, to debauch and poison the minds of divers of the liege subjects of our said Lady the Queen, and to raise and create in them disordered and lustful desires, and to bring the said liege subjects into a state of wickedness, lewdness, and debauchery, and for having on the 20th day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, at a certain shop in Booksellers Lane in the county of London, and within the jurisdiction of this court, unlawfully, wickedly, maliciously, scandalously, and willfully published, sold, and uttered a certain lewd, wicked, bawdy, scandalous, and obscene libel in the form of a book entitled Sexual Selection and Human Marriage, alleged to be written by William Newton Cecil, in which book are contained, amongst other things, divers wicked, lewd, impure, scandalous, and obscene libels, and matters, which said book is, pursuant to the porvisions in that behalf of the Law of Libel Amendment Act, 1888, to the manifest corruption of the morals and minds of the liege subjects of our said Lady the Queen, in contempt of our said Lady of the Queen, and her laws, in violation of common decency, morality, and good order, and against the peace of our said Lady the Queen, her crown, and dignity. Alexander Gilbert, are you guilty or not guilty?

I was sold at “wicked and depraved mind.” Sounds like my kind of story! That the Dramatis Personae lists “The ghost of Charles Darwin” as a character is just gravy. If anyone knows any more about the history of this play, let me know in the comments.

I also visited the stand for Ex Libris Books, run by Jim and Marie Martinelli, right there in Richmond.

They had a number of interesting volumes, including a first edition Nero Wolfe novel. I picked up a copy of Darwin's journal from his time on the H. M. S. Beagle:

But my happiest acquisition from the whole fair was this copy of Gaston Leroux's The Mystery of the Yellow Room:

I have written before about my love of locked room mysteries (click here and here), and the inclusion of The Mystery of the Yellow Room certainly plugs a major hole in my collection. Leroux is better known for having written The Phantom of the Opera (you did know it was a novel, right?) No less an authority than John Dickson Carr described Yellow Room as the finest detective story ever written. And now I have a copy!

Virginia is something of a haven for people interested in old and rare books. Visit the website for The Virginia Antiquarian Booksellers' Association for the numerous options available to you. Nowadays all you hear is that print books are dying. Anything old and worth reading is probably available for free on the internet. Now, don't get me wrong. I love my Kindle and I have a long list of e-books lined up and ready to go. But I also love good ol' print books. The volumes on sale at the fair were not just devices for transmitting words from writer to reader. They were works of art in their own right. Your shelves just look better for displaying such books.

Apparently the plans are to make this an annual event. I can't wait for the next one!

Now, if you can forgive me ending with a bit of self-promotion, let me mention that on Wednesday, May 16 I will be at the Library of Virginia speaking about the BECB (that's the big evolution/creationism book, for those not up on the local slang.) Hope to see you there!

jrosenhouse Sat, 05/05/2012 - 14:02

Tags

Literature

Is Prof. Rosenhouse planning any presentations in Northern Virginia?

Alas, I currently do not have any invitations to speak in Northern Virginia. I'm certainly interested in doing so, however.

Those of us who exhibited at the Richmond Fair certainly enjoyed it! Everyone was so welcoming to us out-of-staters. I do hope that next year your readers will come and search out their own treasures; we'll try and make sure we have some interesting natural history for them ...

Hi Susan! Thanks for stopping by. For everyone else, Susan is the one on the left in the photo just above the Darwin books.

As a veteran exhibitor of many fairs, from New England and as far flung as California, I want to thank VABA and especially Nick, Ellen, and Lorne for their great effort, tireless dedication and hospitality. As an exhibitor, there were no problems, as a book lover I was enthralled and as a vendor quite happy with the surroundings. I look forward to next year.

Jimmy Carter on the Bible

jrosenhouse — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 01:34:16 +0000

Jimmy Carter on the Bible

Jimmy Carter has a new book out about the Bible. He discusses it in this short interview over at HuffPo.

He takes a straightforward approach to dealing with morally or scientifically troubling passages:

Thank you so much for talking with me President Carter. As I warned, I am going to be asking the tough questions. So ... Did God write the Bible?
God inspired the Bible but didn't write every word in the Bible. We know, for instance that stars can't fall on the earth, stars are much larger than the earth. That was a limitation of knowledge of the universe or physics, or astronomy at that time, but that doesn't bother me at all.

How do you approach the passages in the Bible that talk about God's creation (Genesis 1:1) while maintaining a positive attitude towards science?

I happen to have an advantage there because I am a nuclear physicist by training and a deeply committed Christian. I don't have any doubt in my own mind about God who created the entire universe. But I don't adhere to passages that so and so was created 4000 years before Christ, and things of that kind. Today we have shown that the earth and the stars were created millions, even billions, of years before. We are exploring space and sub-atomic particles and learning new facts every day, facts that the Creator has known since the beginning of time.

Does that mean that Carter rejects Biblical inerrancy? Well, yes:

Should we approach the Bible literally, or metaphorically?

When we go to the Bible we should keep in mind that the basic principles of the Bible are taught by God, but written down by human beings deprived of modern day knowledge. So there is some fallibility in the writings of the Bible. But the basic principles are applicable to my life and I don't find any conflict among them.

The example that I set in my private life is to emulate what Christ did as he faced people who were despised like the lepers or the Samaritans. He reached out to them, he reached out to poor people, he reached out to people that were not Jews and treated them equally. The more despised and the more in need they were, the more he emphasized that we should go to and share with them our talent our ability, our wealth, our influence. Those are the things that guide my life and when I find a verse in the Bible that contradicts those things that I just described to you, I put into practice the things that I derive from my faith in Christ.

In Among the Creationists I include a chapter about different approaches to Genesis. I argue that for all the genuine challenges science poses to traditional religious faith, conflicts with the Bible should not be considered among them. But I come to that conclusion only because I believe a Christian does not have to be committed to the principal of Biblical inerrancy. A sincere Christian can take the line Carter promotes here, in which the words on the page are a purely human construction.

The Christian committed to inerrancy really does have a problem. The various kludges people devise to protect the notion from science's onslaught simply do not work at all. The day/age interpretation, gap theory and framework hypothesis are nonstarters. They make a mockery of the text and impose upon it an interpretation too absurd to be taken seriously. Likewise for arguments that God was simply accommodating himself to the limited understanding of the people at the time, or that inerrancy only applies to the theological, and not the scientific, portions of the text. These are just desperation moves.

By contrast, the approach Carter is defending has a long history in Christianity. It certainly solves the problem of how to deal with the morally or scientifically troubling parts; you just ignore them, or find some excuse for giving them a comfortable, liberal interpretation. For example:

A lot of people point to the Bible for reasons why gay people should not be in the church, or accepted in any way.

Homosexuality was well known in the ancient world, well before Christ was born and Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. In all of his teachings about multiple things -- he never said that gay people should be condemned. I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies.

Oh please. The Bible doesn't say much about homosexuality, but what is there is hopelessly, relentlessly negative. Perhaps the reason Jesus doesn't mention it specifically is that he felt the point had been made sufficiently elsewhere.

The problem I have with Carter's approach, however, is that from his starting point I fail to see why you need the Bible at all. That is, if you must constantly use your own moral intuitions and scientific knowledge to understand which parts of the Bible are meant literally and which require a more nuanced approach, then why bother with the Bible at all? Why not just trust your own moral judgements directly and cut out the middleman?

Carter cites Jesus' willingness to reach out to despised minorities and to the poor as something that has guided his own life. That is well and good, but did he really need the Bible to tell him that it is good to be mindful of the least among us? Perhaps he means simply that he finds the example of Jesus to be especially inspiring. Again, well and good, but the annals of history and literature provide countless other examples to provide inspiration. I fail to see why, under Carter's approach, the Bible is worthy of special veneration and study.

The allure of the fundamentalist approach to the Bible is that it provides you with factual information that can not be obtained in any other way. You need the Bible as an anchor, precisely because your own intuitions and judgments are hopelessly corrupted by sin. Sadly, the fundamentalist approach is untenable for all sorts of reasons, which I'm sure I don't need to rehearse here.

You can avoid this problem by taking Carter's approach and dispensing with inerrancy. But then you have reduced the Bible to just one more inspiring work of literature among many others.

More sensible than either of these approaches, I would think, is the one where you simply regard the Bible as an anthology of purely human documents, relevant for their historical and literary value but not for much else. Alas, I don't think either Carter or the fundamentalists will be too receptive to that idea.

jrosenhouse Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:34

Tags

Literature

Categories

Physical Sciences

' That was a limitation of knowledge of the universe or physics, or astronomy at that time, but that doesn't bother me at all.'

Yes, the people who wrote the Bible did not know what we now know so had all kinds of crazy beliefs, including a belief in a god.

CARTER
He reached out to them, he reached out to poor people, he reached out to people that were not Jews and treated them equally.

CARR
In other words, Jimmy hasn't read the disgusting, vile abuse Jesus allegedly poured on to people in places like Matthew 23, 24 and Luke 11.

I can only thank God that Carter does not behave like Jesus. Pat Robertson behaves like the Jesus character, but Carter does not.

steven carr -- try re-reading the chapters you cite. while the bible is full of vile, even sociopathic, events and commands, the three chapters you list are not among them.

Would you like me to list the vile abuse Jesus throws at people in Matthew 23?

Or repeat Luke 11's claim that one generation of Jews will be held responsible for a murder that happened 2000 years before any of them were born?

I laugh at people like Carter who try to rationalize what Jesus said or didn't say or did or didn't do. Jesus is a fictional character just like all the religious books. Carter might as well use Harry Potter, "Gone with the Wind or "Great Expectations" for his morality baseline.

That is well and good, but did he really need the Bible to tell him that it is good to be mindful of the least among us?

Probably not. And God probably didn't need a bible or a Jesus to tell us about the golden rule, since lots of other people came up with that separately.

But Jesus also had some more radical things to say which are not necessarily self-obvious to regular people's moral intuitions or common to many cultures. Such as complete pacifism. Forgiving your enemies. Giving away all your stuff. Forsaking your families to preach. If one believes that those biblical lessons also came from God, then I can see a pretty solid need for God to send someone to tell us to do these things, because most of us would not come to those conclusions on our own. Folk like Ghandi might, but he's a rare case.

One could also argue that a concrete example is worth a lot of words. Take pacifism as an example. Simply telling people to turn the other cheek is probably not going to convince normal people that its a viable course of action unless you show them somebody who actually does it. Or take the idea of poverty as a virtue; this is already difficult (for God) to sell. How much more difficult would it be if Jesus had been wealthy?

So, I can see why a God might need a bible or avatar to communicate some of the more radical christian messages. But you are right, neither was really needed to communicate the more morally intuitive stuff.

That is well and good, but did he really need the Bible to tell him that it is good to be mindful of the least among us?

A hypothesis I have is that having a guiding philosophy that supports your intuitions can lead to a greater consistency of behavior.

I think Hitchens puts it really well by showing that not all the things Jesus is said to teach are all moral. To me, He is going to send those who don't accept him to hell and to be tormented forever. In comparison, all other things just pale.

eric --

I would note, though, that the more radical things you mention are all morally questionable. For example, I do not regard complete pacifism as a morally correct position. Fighting is to be avoided as much as possible, but there are times when it is necessary. People have to decide for themselves when those times have arrived, based on their own priorities and moral beliefs. Likewise for the other principles you mention. Once again I would simply emphasize that we don't need the Bible to teach us the basic principles, and the Bible is no help at all in working out the proper applications of those principles in messy, complex situations.

The Bible doesn't say much about homosexuality, but what is there is hopelessly, relentlessly negative.

There's a lot of "hopelessly, relentlessly negative" shit in the Bible that huge numbers of Christians just disregard every day. And Jesus himself explicitly bends and breaks OT rules, and justifies it by advising everyone to use their judgment and common decency, not to just mindlessly parrot and enforce OT laws without thinking of intent and consequences.

Perhaps the reason Jesus doesn't mention it specifically is that he felt the point had been made sufficiently elsewhere.

If Jesus had thought something was important, he would have said so. The fact that he talked a lot about helping the poorest of us, and never mentioned gayness, is relevant: it tells us what he considered important.

So yes, Carter is perfectly right to take Jesus' silence on gayness as an acknowledgement that it's not something Christians should be freaking out about.

As I understand it, Thomas Jefferson also had a great admiration for Jesus' moral teachings, but did not accept Jesus' divinity. Based on what I know of Jefferson and Carter, I agree more with Jefferson, but think Carter is the better person. (Of course people are products of their times and who knows how they would compare if their historical times were exchanged.) Arguably, Carter might exemplify the elusive case where religion has made someone a better person. Or maybe such people are more attracted to religion.

My two votes for Jimmy Carter are the two I was and am most happy with. (Usually by now such illusions would have shattered.) As a human being responsible for our nuclear trigger, that is. I was not always happy with his choice of advisors (cough-Zbigniew Brzezinski-cough).

"Why not just trust your own moral judgements directly and cut out the middleman?"

And, of course, this is what Carter does but does not admit. But I guess it's more comfortable for him to live and think the way he wants and still be included in his circle of friends and family than to give that all up for what probably does not matter that much to him.

Steven Carr, you do know that the people Jesus is condemning in Matthew 23 are the equivalent of the worst of Biblical fundamentalists today, don't you? Or maybe not.

"Perhaps the reason Jesus doesn't mention it specifically is that he felt the point had been made sufficiently elsewhere." Jason Rosenhouse

If he'd thought gay sex was a major point, he'd have been far more likely to have mentioned it. He didn't and that should speak louder than your speculation.

I'm really wondering what you've got against what Jimmy
Carter said. I wish more people thought like him instead of the way they do.

Where in materialism do you find a moral requirement for people to observe the rights of glbt people? Where do you find that in science? I'd rather take my chances on Christians like Carter than I would materialists like Coyne who think that rights and morals are figments of some collective and temporary imagination.

I'd rather not get into the variant readings of the handful of times that the Bible seems to refer to gay sex, though the idea that any of it has to be read in the context of the texts and in light of language scholarship.

Steven Carr -- please do so. (FYI, i too am atheist, I just find your use of the chapters above off-target...)

Anthony --

If he'd thought gay sex was a major point, he'd have been far more likely to have mentioned it. He didn't and that should speak louder than your speculation.

So when I point out that the Bible specifically and unambiguously condemns homosexuality you say I'm speculating. But when you take Jesus' silence on a subject as evidence that he was actually speaking loudly about it that's, what, sound exegesis?

I'm really wondering what you've got against what Jimmy
Carter said. I wish more people thought like him instead of the way they do.

Did you read the opening post? I thought I explained rather clearly what I had against what Carter said.

Where in materialism do you find a moral requirement for people to observe the rights of glbt people? Where do you find that in science? I'd rather take my chances on Christians like Carter than I would materialists like Coyne who think that rights and morals are figments of some collective and temporary imagination.

Since hostility towards gay rights is almost exclusively a religious phenomenon, I hardly think materialists have to be on the defensive on that score. It's religious folks who generally have trouble finding a reason to care about gay rights, and highly religious societies that most egregiously trample on the rights of minorities. Secular and non-religious societies have a far better track record on such things. So you're just talking through your hat here.

Jason @8:

I would note, though, that the more radical things you mention are all morally questionable.

That was my point! That would be a good reason to send an avatar to do them, yes? If your followers are staring at each other going "He can't be serious, can he?" that's when it's time to drop in a bible or Jesus to say "yes, I'm serious."

Once again I would simply emphasize that we don't need the Bible to teach us the basic principles, and the Bible is no help at all in working out the proper applications of those principles in messy, complex situations.

This assumes your basic principles are Gods. But my point is, a bible or Jesus makes sense if God's basic principles aren't ours. Of course, if that's the case, theists have to answer why we made-in-the-image-of-God folk have different moral intuitions from our maker. I predict the answer to that question will be the same 'ol "the fall! No, wait, free will! No, wait, its all part of His plan! Did I mention free will?"

"So when I point out that the Bible specifically and unambiguously condemns homosexuality you say I'm speculating." Jason Rosenhouse

First, there are plenty of people who know the languages who have looked at the context in which sex between males is mentioned in the bible and they don't find it unambiguous. I'm no expert in either but I think their point that those verses refer to things like pagan temple prostitution makes a lot more sense than that the authors had something like a modern understanding of being gay. In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah there are variant interpretations of what the "sin of Sodom" was in later books of the Bible, including that it was acting inhospitably to strangers.

As I have had to point out a number of times, if I and another man walked into the nearest United Church of Christ to ask to be married (it's in New Hampshire which has gay marriage) the only question would be if the church was free. I'm sure that Bishop Gene Robinson, also in New Hampshire, would be willing to officiate, if he's not busy. Or maybe he could suggest who it was who married him to his husband, Mark, for the occasion.

I read your post, I was trying to be charitable, assuming that your point wasn't just another occasion to slam religion in general and Christianity in particular.

"hostility towards gay rights is almost exclusively a religious phenomenon"

Oh, no it isn't. Being gay I can say that the hostility I've experienced had nothing to do with religion, it had far more to do with machismo and a decidedly non-religious kind of hatred. The several times I was attacked and threatened it had nothing to do with religion, the attackers not being noted for their religiosity. I'd guess they'd probably not be great church goers.

I think you should review the laws against gay sex under the various atheist regimes. You might also look at how the largely secular, not infrequently atheist, profession of psychology has considered gay people. It was behaviorists who used to apply shocks to genitals in "aversion therapy" within living memory. Robert Spitzer, one of the big names in the "cure the gay away" industry is an atheist.

Of course, you could point out that much of psychology has developed in its attitude towards being gay, as has much of religion. Though, as in the case of psychology, not all religion has.

Anthony --

First, there are plenty of people who know the languages who have looked at the context in which sex between males is mentioned in the bible and they don't find it unambiguous. I'm no expert in either but I think their point that those verses refer to things like pagan temple prostitution makes a lot more sense than that the authors had something like a modern understanding of being gay. In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah there are variant interpretations of what the "sin of Sodom" was in later books of the Bible, including that it was acting inhospitably to strangers.

And there are plenty of others who have looked at it and think it means exactly what it seems to say so plainly. I am perfectly aware that there are many scholars with liberal sympathies who, disappointed that the Bible takes such a primitive view of homosexuality, summon forth strained interpretations to make those verses go away. But it's not plausible. Even Richard Elliott Friedman and Shawna Dolansky, who recently wrote a book trying to make the Bible take liberal views on a variety of cultural issues, agree that the Bible explicitly prohibits male homosexual acts.

As I have had to point out a number of times, if I and another man walked into the nearest United Church of Christ to ask to be married (it's in New Hampshire which has gay marriage) the only question would be if the church was free. I'm sure that Bishop Gene Robinson, also in New Hampshire, would be willing to officiate, if he's not busy. Or maybe he could suggest who it was who married him to his husband, Mark, for the occasion.

And if you walk into a Catholic or Evangelical church, which account for a far greater percentage of American Christians than the United Church of Christ, you will be sent on your way. Yes, of course there are liberal denominations that take a more sensible view of these things. Bless them for doing so. But it is the mainline and liberal denominations that have been hemorrhaging members in recent years.

I read your post, I was trying to be charitable, assuming that your point wasn't just another occasion to slam religion in general and Christianity in particular.

You read my post, and only saw what you wanted to see. Had you read it honestly you would have noticed that my criticism of Carter is actually pretty muted, and I even compliment his view at the start of the post. I specifically say that his approach is one that a Christians can reasonably take, and that it completely defuses the conflict between science and the Bible. To the extent that I criticize him at all it is only for being arbitrary about which parts of the Bible he heeds and which he ignores. I am always happy to slam religion in general and Christianity in particular, but I pretty clearly was doing neither in this post. The only thing I slam are certain strained interpretations of the Bible.

Oh, no it isn't. Being gay I can say that the hostility I've experienced had nothing to do with religion, it had far more to do with machismo and a decidedly non-religious kind of hatred. The several times I was attacked and threatened it had nothing to do with religion, the attackers not being noted for their religiosity. I'd guess they'd probably not be great church goers.

But we weren't talking about hostility to gays, were we? We were talking about hostility to gay rights, which is a very different thing. The reason you can't get married has nothing to do with some schoolyard bully with masculinity issues. It's the Catholics, Evangelicals and Mormons who are going all out, spending millions to defeat gay marriage referendums. It's the Catholics who would rather abandon their commitment to helping the poor rather than have to employ a gay person who is civilly married, as Andrew Sullivan points out.

I think you should review the laws against gay sex under the various atheist regimes. You might also look at how the largely secular, not infrequently atheist, profession of psychology has considered gay people. It was behaviorists who used to apply shocks to genitals in “aversion therapy” within living memory. Robert Spitzer, one of the big names in the “cure the gay away” industry is an atheist.

I have no idea what “atheist regimes” you are talking about. Are you seriously playing the Stalin card? At any rate, you know perfectly well that I was talking about countries today. And if you would care to consider the list of countries that have legalized gay marriage you will find that most of them are countries with strong separations of church and state and large populations of nonbelievers.

As for psychology, all I can say is that you're really getting desperate. Sure, for much of the twentieth century psychology viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. But that's because for most of the twentieth century psychology was a pseudoscience that was biased by social norms ultimately finding their justification in religious notions like natural law. As psychology became more professional in the second half of the twentieth century the tide quickly turned, and since the 1970s every major psychological organization has realized their error. Today, which is what we're talking about, you're hard pressed to find many psychologists who treat gayness as a disorder. And the ones who do are deservedly pariahs in the field.

But I especially loved your invocation of Robert Spitzer. I point out that the largest and most politically powerful religious organizations in the country are so opposed to gay rights that they make it a drop dead issue that trumps all other concerns, and you come back with one obscure guy no one had ever heard of.

Of course, you could point out that much of psychology has developed in its attitude towards being gay, as has much of religion. Though, as in the case of psychology, not all religion has.

Yes, that “not all” is highly significant. As I just pointed out, the idea that gayness is a mental disorder is now all but nonexistent in psychology. Religion is progressing far more slowly.

But it's irrelevant to my point anyway. I didn't say all religious people are hostile to gay rights. I actually said that the opposition to gay rights is exclusively religious in origin. And it is.

you know perfectly well that I was talking about countries today

Well, if you're going to talk about today, talk about today, then. Today there are a lot of religious people who don't see that gay sex is, in itself, sinful. Today a lot of biblical scholars find the traditional interpretation of the Bible on gay sex was wrong. I'd guess that, the religious demographics of the United States being what they are, the majority of those favoring equal rights, now including equal marriage rights, are religious, most of them being Christians. I'd rather encourage more of the Christians and others who don't, currently, favor equal rights to have a conversion. As the now centuries long effort by atheists to do away with religion doesn't seem to have had much success, I'd rather not complicate my struggle for rights with an unrelated effort I'm not a part of to begin with. I'd guess that if atheists barged in and coopted the Civil Rights struggles of the 50s and 60s, the laws

I'm not interested in having my civil rights being used to promote atheism because it's difficult enough as it is to convince people of my rights without having a group that already has legal protection for those rights (since 1965 and before for many of them) in their frequently petty ideological war with the large majority of people. I'd guess that if atheists barged in and coopted the Civil Rights struggles of the 50s and 60s, the laws passed in 1964 and 65 may well have failed, those laws that made atheists a covered class. When I have the ability to exercise my full rights it will be because a group consisting, by far, of religious believers will recognize and be willing to protect them. That they will have to protect them against a group which uses religious arguments against them is all the more reason I'd like those people to be able to counter those arguments in terms of religion.

The Rev. Martin Luther King jr. was one of the early figures to publicly and openly practice equality, hiring a gay man in a way that could have been a calamity when he hired Bayard Rustin to organize the March on Washington. Not only was Rustin gay but he had been imprisoned for resisting the draft during WWII and for having gay sex. It wasn't only religious people who slammed that decision, mostly on the basis of Rustin being gay, that eclipsed even his former membership in the Communist Party in the criticism I remember at the time. But it was the Rev. King who saw into the future on that one, not the secular, not infrequently anti-religious, would-be radicals of the time. Only, as it turned out, Rev. King was far more radical, both in practicality and vision than they were.

I notice you don't want to deal with my question of why I should think that materialists who don't recognize the reality of inherent rights, frequently believing, as Coyne does, that rights are imaginary and so should be considered as changing with the dominant view of societies, are a safe bet with my rights. I'd like to know why, under materialism, it wasn't perfectly OK for societies in previous times to ban gay sex, since that was the view of the majority in those societies. Where did the rights of gay people back then come from? Where were my rights back then or in those places now? Under that materialist theory, they wouldn't have existed. If the vast majority of people some time in the future decide that gay people should be given the death penalty and change the laws to allow that, wouldn't our rights disappear under that materialist scheme? I'd think I'm better off with people who believe that rights are inherent, even better off with those who believe they are equally assigned by a Creator. I'd have a chance to make the case that my rights really existed independent of the beliefs of the majority.

You might want to look at the history of criminal sanctions against gay sex in the very, very Catholic country of Poland, where it was legal until the Soviet Union made it illegal when they invaded. I'm unaware of any places with officially atheist governments where gay marriage was or is allowed while countries with official state churches have pretty much full, legal equality.

"Yes, of course there are liberal denominations that take a more sensible view of these things. Bless them for doing so"

Heh. Just had a thought.

Rather than tax breaks and so forth for religious organisations and donations thereof, how about we just all bless them for their good works, and NOT give them tax breaks and subsidies?

"For example, I do not regard complete pacifism as a morally correct position. Fighting is to be avoided as much as possible"

The way I put it to myself is that violence is NEVER the right answer.

At some point it may become the least wrong, or even much better than any alternatives now left available. But the lack of better alternatives is probably a consequence of not choosing better earlier.

I.e. swatting bees is violent, but letting you get stung and go into shock rather than swat them is worse. HOWEVER, you should have considered not kicking the bees nest earlier.

AMC:

If the vast majority of people some time in the future decide that gay people should be given the death penalty and change the laws to allow that, wouldn't our rights disappear under that materialist scheme?

That depends on whether that future legal constitution protects your rights to self-determination against a 'tyrrany of the majority.' If it does, you will be protected regardless of what God thinks about gay rights. If it doesn't, you will not be protected again regardless of what God thinks of gay rights.

IOW, whether its inherent or not will likely make no difference on your legal protections.

I'd think I'm better off with people who believe that rights are inherent, even better off with those who believe they are equally assigned by a Creator. I'd have a chance to make the case that my rights really existed independent of the beliefs of the majority.

And your opponents would simply argue that these inherent rights do not include the acts and relationships you want to include in them.

Whether you're dealing with atheists, christians, scientologists, whatever, you have to convince the humans and the human legal system to respect your rights. I think the nonbelievers are in a slightly more informed opinion in that they recognize that this is a question about humans. But pragmatically, there may not be much difference.

Invoking god's support for some right is like invoking god's support for your football team; every side does it, and it makes no difference to the result.

"wouldn't our rights disappear under that materialist scheme?"

And if a religious takeover of the USA then results in a law forbidding under the thread of the death penalty homosexual acts, wouldn't your rights disappear under that spiritualist scheme?

Or, in other words, why is your hypothetical scenario a "materialist scheme" rather than a religious one?

Re Jason Rosenhouse @ #17

The reason you can't get married has nothing to do with some schoolyard bully with masculinity issues.

Actually, it is my information that Mr. McCarthy lives in New York City, and since same sex marriage is now legal in New York State, he can, in fact get married.

By the way, it should be noted that the two most recent states legalizing same sex marriage, New York and Maryland, have Catholic governors, namely Andrew Cuomo and Martin O'Malley who supported and signed the bills. A hat tip, in the case of Maryland, should also go to former Vice-President Cheney, whose lobbying for the bill convinced two Rethuglican member of the lower house to support the it; without those two votes, the bill would have failed as it did in the previous session.

Eric, that a materialist would think that there was no difference between taking a side in football and civil rights would have surprised me as recently as eight years ago, it doesn't surprise me now. Perhaps they don't realize it, being in a group with legal protection, that those impeached rights include the rights of atheists. I think you just gave permission to anyone who isn't an atheist to not care about the rights of atheists, if they choose.

The difference between that materialist view of rights, that they are imaginary, the result of whatever temporary majority decides they are and the view that rights are inherent, inalienable and the equally distributed endowment of the Creator couldn't be more obvious. Under one "rights" are as imaginary as a teapot in space, under the other they are real and persist no matter what even a majority thinks. A majority, or a minority that has seized power might keep me from exercising my rights but they are there, nonetheless.

That materialists despise the idea of God so much that they take an potentially dangerous stand on rights that erases any rational claim they could assert the reality of their rights - including the irrational one they always bang on about, the right of atheists to be elected president - could lead someone to believe that their stand is far more emotional than rational. It wouldn't surprise me if under a regime that takes your view of rights, atheists might be among those who find themselves under attack.

As I've said here before, the history of atheist regimes is, uniformly, that of violent dictatorial nightmares. The chances under even those countries with official state religions are that the results will be far better. With declarations about rights, such as yours, I'm going to have to believe that the experiments on that issue have been run and the results are in.

I used to say that I didn't care how atheists accounted for the existence and reality of civil rights, though I couldn't see how they could believe they were real. Now that so many atheists are questioning the reality of them in public, I do care and I'm not reassured by what they're saying. Materialism is, inherently, an anti-liberal ideology that inevitably demotes people into objects. I no longer think it's possible for people who regard people as objects to really respect their rights. Libertarian indifference is no substitute for a belief in real, inherent rights. Neither is opportunistic usurpation of civil rights issues to promote unrelated ideologies. The Stalinists who hijacked part of the left in the U.S. did that. It did nothing for civil rights and, as their hero showed, they were entirely uninterested in civil rights in the end.

Anticipating the frothing rage on the "atheist for president" issue, NO ONE has a right to get anyone's vote, the right is that of a person to cast a vote. There is a right to run for president, assuming you meet the qualifications. But voters get to not vote for whoever they choose not to for whatever reason they choose. If you want their vote, you have to persuade them to vote the way you'd like them to. Being rude to people is known to be ballot box poison. I suppose I should be surprised how many Brights don't realize that. But I really am not.

Re Andrew McCarthy

I would point out to Mr. McCarthy that Spain and Argentina, both heavily Catholic countries, legalized same sex marriage over the vehement opposition of the church and all its officials.

SLC, Mr. McCarthy lives in Maine, is a native of Maine and resided in the state except for when he was in college and grad school. He lives on the same farm he grew up on. Maine does not have equal marriage rights now, it did. My ex-state legislator said, when he voted to support equal marriage rights, that his old Catholic mother told him it was the right thing to do.

And I'm afraid that even Jason Rosenhouse is going to have to defer to my knowledge of my experience. The people who attacked me were thugs, mostly known to me, none of whom were especially pious, certainly if their language was any indication.

Thanks Jimmy Carter for inspiring such dialog. If only as keepers of our planet and brothers and sisters of each other we would put as much thought into stopping our own self destruction -- what a wonderful world it could be.

Re Anthony McCarthy @ #26

My apologies to Mr. McCarthy. I got the impression from earlier posts from him that he was a resident of New York City. Maybe it was a different Anthony McCarthy.

However, it is a fact that the only significant opposition to the same sex marriage bills in New York and Maryland were from the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and, in the case of Maryland, from black churches in Prince Georges County. In fact, it is my information that the only Democrats who opposed the bill in Maryland were from PG county. As occurred in California relative to Proposition 8, the black churches have far more influence over their parishioners then does the Catholic Church these days.

"that a materialist would think that there was no difference between taking a side in football and civil rights"

Aawww, bless.

Go on, then. Wow us. Tell us what difference there is that had to be said in eric's post.

"the view that rights are inherent, inalienable and the equally distributed endowment of the Creator"

Really? What rights are these?

PS By the way, there is no creator who gave us anything.

AMC:

Eric, that a materialist would think that there was no difference between taking a side in football and civil rights would have surprised me as recently as eight years ago, it doesn't surprise me now.

Don't be insulting. The point of my analogy was obvious - claiming to have god's support doesn't add anything to either side's argument. Twisting it and implying that I was trying to trivialize gay rights is obnoxious. I'd ask for an apology, but I doubt I'd get one.

Under one "rights" are as imaginary as a teapot in space, under the other they are real and persist no matter what even a majority thinks. A majority, or a minority that has seized power might keep me from exercising my rights but they are there, nonetheless.

Under both, your legal and practical rights extend only so far as the law - not any inherency - protects them.

Claiming they are inherent is a claim about their metaphysical status. But metaphysical status is irrelevant to the question of legal exercise. A right doesn't have to be metaphysically inherent to be legally enforced, and metaphysical inherency doesn't confer any ability to legally exercise it. There is no connection. Which means that if you want gays to have rights in practice, you need to address the question of legal exercise and not the question of inherency.

It's both highly amusing and bafflingly unsupportable how this beansprout AMC turns:

Invoking god's support for some right is like invoking god's support for your football team; every side does it, and it makes no difference to the result.

Into this:

"there [is] no difference between taking a side in football and civil rights"

But when you have nothing on your side, your only recourse is to pretend everyone else is even worse.

As a gay atheist who has studied gay bashing for years, I can definitely say that it ALL comes from religion.

Gay bashing does not exist in religious communities that are gay supportive.

"Machismo" comes from religiously pronounced masculine roles handed down by god. In religious communities which do not have such predetermined gender roles, there is no machismo.

So, Anthony McCarthy, your points are in error. Your interpretation of your personal experience is in error.

Your belief that you have "rights" regardless of whether or not they are observed by the powers that be, is in error. This is an interesting kind of denial on your part.

Another small point, Maine never had fully equal marriage rights for same sex couples. It could not, unless it was joined hand in hand with federal marriage equality. You see, at NS Portsmouth, you wouldn't be considered married because it is a military base, and the military doesn't recognize same sex marriage regardless of what the individual states recognize.

For Dr. Rosenhouse, there are a few slight corrections. Jesus gave his blessing to a same sex couple when he raised the centurions male lover from the dead. Here's just one source: http://www.gaychristian101.com/Centurion-And-Pais.html

Friedman and Dolansky are by far not the final word on homosexuality in the bible -- their work is not universally accepted (I, for one, do not agree with all their conclusions).

That being said, I do agree with your criticism of President Carter. He's got a lifetime of adherence to his rituals, and I would be extremely surprised if he were to put down his cross and follow us -- but he keeps edging closer all the time. And people like him.

Which is why your posts are so important. They help to create a climate of analytical thinking and skepticism.

"Your belief that you have "rights" regardless of whether or not they are observed by the powers that be, is in error"

Not for him.

You see, if you have inherent rights from a Creator that doesn't NEED concession from merely physical authority, then AMC doesn't have to protect your rights or even say that you must be allowed to marry, since The Creator will do that for you. And if The Creator doesn't, then that must be because of Ineffability (or He Really Hates Gays).

So you see, if no legislation is passed protecting your rights and you still get vilified, beaten and treated like a third-class citizen, then this isn't HIS fault, it's because The Creator doesn't think you have any rights.

You would do well with a little more self-awareness. An openly gay man wishing for marriage rights hasn't a leg to stand on in trying to invoke "the large majority of people."

And it's funny to see you invoke MLK Jr's embrace of Bayard Rustin as proof of how great the "Christian" civil rights movement was to gays. Do you even know that civil rights leader Rustin was an atheist? Reminds me of Glenn Beck's insistence that his tea party rallies are actually "taking back" the civil rights movement to what Dr. King "originally wanted" before those dirty liberals invented a false history of it in the 1970s.

Marriage is not the only civil right that matters. There are numerous examples of state laws and even state constitutions discriminating openly against atheists, not to mention the significant discrimination within the divorce court system against atheist parents, under all of which cases they are institutionally treated as second-class citizens.

"Jesus gave his blessing to a same sex couple when he raised the centurions male lover from the dead."

Luke (7:12) "When he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man."

(7:14) "He came and touched the bier ... And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise."

(7:15) "And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak."

Or was it Matthew:

8:13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

Now maybe JC brought him back to life, but he doesn't appear to be blessing any relationship, homo or hetero, between the Centurion and his slave.

Wow, are you suggesting that (the non-existent) JC would have raised the dead lover if JC had viewed them as being repulsive deviants actively engaged in sin that was total abomination to himself? Wouldn't it have at the very least garnered a "go and sin no more" comment?

Why waste a miracle of resurrection on someone who actively was to be put to death for their particular sin?

Yes, there is no record of JC saying "I bless your relationship" -- but the resurrection without negative comment at the request of the centurion is a clear indication that JC was okay with them as a couple.

It doesn't matter what rights you have in theory. Rights don't inhere, adhere, etc, etc. That is all bullshit. It all boils down to rhetoric. If you can convince someone you have rights, then you do. The fact that people are discussing this further establishes the point. There are values and then there is the legitimation of values. The legitimation is done through rhetoric. God talk is just another rhetorical tool to legitimize a set of values. Even the moronic born-agains have to use rhetoric. Its called 'preaching the word', 'spreading the gospel', 'sharing my testimony' and other such talk about 'blik'. If you can convince someone a moral fact extsts, then it does. If you can't it doesn't.

"are you suggesting that (the non-existent) JC would have raised the dead lover if JC had viewed them as being repulsive deviants actively engaged in sin that was total abomination to himself?"

No, I'm saying (and not suggesting) that JC didn't bless their union.

If he didn't exist, then he doubly didn't. :-)

And I can see someone in trouble and give them aid.

I don't ask for their sex life to be recounted to me before I'll decide whether to help or not (and note that there was no discussion about this person being any other than "beloved" which, since the apostles were the beloved of Christ, would mean you're calling him one of the biggest benders of all history (until Bender Rodrigues Bender was crafted some time in the year 2996). So there's nowt there to say either that JC knew they were lovers, or even approved. Just that one man was honest and his friend died, so JC did what he could to make the honest man's life better.

gr8hands, how do you determine which came first, the machismo or patriarchal attitudes within religion? As it takes people to gay bash, any sociological or anti-religious ideological assertions on that point are moot if the bashers were atheists or anti-religious. But I'd rather concentrate on the situation in recent history and today rather than come up with some Neolithic Just-so Story about that.

I've run into lots of gay bashing by atheists over the years. Your experience is your own but mine, apparently is different. The people I ran into, many who I knew over a period of decades, who were the most homophobic were not religious. A number of them would be most accurately described as irreligious boys who delighted in being as nasty as they could be. I've done some reading about Madalyn Murray O'Hair in the past couple of months. Seems the former most famous atheist in the world was a flaming gay basher in private as she made liberalish noises in public.

I doubt that there would be much chance of running into much anti-gay discrimination in most liberal religious congregations as compared to the general population. I doubt I'd run into much of it even among some of the moderate ones.

Of course, until there is a federal ruling or law that enforces full legal equality, no state law will be able to confer that.

TTT, you don't understand how radical it was for The Rev. King to hire Rustin and the opposition he ran into. He took a huge gamble with one of the major events of the Civil Rights struggle that could have been a disaster to practice equality in a way that was hardly even considered back then. You can contrast that to Harry Hay getting kicked out of the Communist Party for being publicly gay, if you want to push it. I don't know how old you were in 1963 but, as a gay high school student reading about it, that was a huge deal.

Don't be insulting. eric

You're the one who made the comparison, which was insulting, I just pointed it out that it was consistent with materialist conceptions of rights being imaginary, created out of nothing but a majority point of view that is liable to change, thus erasing any right that is asserted at another time.

Imaginary rights are no different from those interplanetary tea pots or fairies you people are always bringing up as the standard of ludicrous ideas. Imaginary rights are as susceptible to denial as any other imaginary entity. The history of materialists denial of them is rather depressingly long and, at times, cold blooded. I've known that history since the early 60s. I used to ignore it out of an overly idealistic belief in a leftist solidarity that, in the past decade, I've found was certainly not reciprocal. I've had enough. I don't think materialism is compatible with real liberalism. Materialism, no less than conservatism, regards people as objects whereas liberalism is based in the belief that people are more than that. I find that when you really get down to it, many if not most materialists who believe themselves to be liberal are actually just a different flavor of libertarian. I'm not ignoring that problem with materialism anymore.

I and other consenting adults had the right to do what we agreed to even when it was illegal by majority vote, as long as we observed each other's rights and dignity. I have a right to enter into marriage with another man, even as that is denied by the vote overturning marriage equality under state law in a referendum that should never have been allowed. If the upcoming referendum to restore marriage rights in Maine fails, I will still have that right. Most of the people I know who are working on restoring that right are religious, some of them Catholics, some of them Baptists. If that restoration depended only on the votes of non-religious people, it would fail. By the standards of materialism, if those rights are denied by a majority vote, they don't exist.

If you atheists want to fight it out among yourselves until you come up with an alternative that supports that those rights are as real as the entities studied by particle physics or the discovered the fossil record, I'll revise my ideas about that. But I'm not waiting up nights for that to happen.

Actually, Wow, the centurion told JC that his lover (using local idioms, just like I would say my "partner") was ill and asked for healing. Everyone listening would have known they were a gay couple -- no divinity needed.

The mere fact the centurion was a roman should have been enough to be turned away. But a gay roman centurion would be even more reason. You should read the link I provided to give you the proper linguistic and historical background.

If I tell you my partner is sick, needs an operation, and we can't afford it -- and you hand me a wad of cash to pay for it, you have given my relationship your tacet blessing. (If I told you that my sex partner was a 6 year old, would you still have given the cash? Why or why not?)

Anthony McCarthy, you are delusional, and need to be seen by competent medical and psychiatric professionals.

Or, more likely, a troll.

"the centurion told JC that his lover (using local idioms, just like I would say my "partner")"

How do you know that? The Jews at the time didn't speak and write 20th Century English, you know.

And you can say your partner and not your lover.

In the "local idiom", Jesus said that his apostles were his beloved followers. Just like the centurion in the "local idiom" said that his slave was a beloved slave.

"The mere fact the centurion was a roman should have been enough to be turned away"

Therefore showing that JC could still have considered gay men to be evil and icky, just as Romans were evil and icky (believing in myths and so on like Mithras and having idol worshipping as big on their list of "do"s), but he decided to do so.

See also the pharisee. Or the whores he healed.

He healed people whether they were evil or icky.

If he existed, that is.

"If I tell you my partner is sick, needs an operation, and we can't afford it -- and you hand me a wad of cash to pay for it, you have given my relationship your tacet blessing."

No, I gave you a wodge of cash.

If I then turned around and said "Now bum be you big hunkalove, you", then I'd be saying something about heterosexual congress being great.

Or are you saying, gr8hands, that you would only aid those who were suffering only when their private activities are ones you agree with and wish to see prosper and flourish?

Maybe that greater love for my fellow human is because I'm not a Christian :-)

(ps that should have been "Now bum me..." in the previous post)

I'm surprised that even after making the suggestion, you didn't take the time to follow the link which explains how "I know" what the local idioms were.

Please note in the other healings JC would say "go and sin no more" -- making it clear that he did not approve of their sins.

This is all academic, of course, as JC didn't exist and the works attributed are fictional.

As for who I would aid, I would have to think twice about giving assistance to Fred Phelps or his family, or Santorum, or other rabidly anti-gay people. I would not give money to any beggar with a sign that says "why lie? I want a beer."

I note you declined to say whether you would assist an active unrepentant pedophile, or turn them into the police (which is your legal responsibility).

gr8hands, I try to resist getting into a name calling fight here as the owner of the blog doesn't seem to like it.

You clearly need to read more about the history of the gay rights struggle and the part that religious people have had in it. As I said, if it depended on atheists, nothing would have ever happened because there just aren't enough of them.

For several of the people above, I'd like to know how anyone who isn't allowed their rights by a majority of a society and the law, who asserts that they have a right - which you materialists deem is non-existent under those conditions - isn't delusional, believing in something that doesn't exist. Why should anyone who is being asked to support that assertion of rights believe that it's worth their effort over something that is imaginary. I don't think believing that will be sufficient to overcome social inertia necessary to make progress.

Anthony McCarthy, the delusional/troll, citation please for your statements.

I've been involved in the gay rights struggle since shortly after Stonewall, so you are making an error trying to lecture me about it. Your personal experience, if true, is clearly an outlier on the reality graph. Follow your own advice and read more about it.

Well, gr8hands, I came out before Stonewall. Not everything began with that event in NYC. You are familiar with Harry Hay, aren't you?

How about The Rev. John T. Graves, who, I believe, was a founding member of The Society for Human Rights. You are familiar with that very early gay rights organization, aren't you?

Yes, I am familiar with the groups/people you named, and the Mattachine Society as well (and the Cockettes, and . . . ).

You will note they were not religious groups, although they had some members who were religious, because the religious were the biggest group of persecutors.

Oh yes, Harry Hay who supported NAMBLA -- and should be ashamed for such support. Hero of yours? Double shame.

Actually you would have been better to suggest Metropolitan Community Church which was started before Stonewall. But the criticism of them is similar to Dr. Rosenhouse's criticism of President Carter. They cherry pick what they accept from the bible and pretend to be in compliance with it.

AMC:

I and other consenting adults had the right to do what we agreed to even when it was illegal by majority vote...I have a right to enter into marriage with another man, even as that is denied by the vote...If the upcoming referendum to restore marriage rights in Maine fails, I will still have that right.

I am now curious how you define "right."

It seems to me that if you are fighting to change the law, and you call this a gay rights fight, you recognize that rights have something to do with legality. Which is all that I'm saying - in practical terms, rights have to do with what is legal.

If your point is that convincing people its inherent may then make it easier to get them to vote for gay rights legislation, I may agree. But its that change in law that makes the practical difference in people's lives. Absent legal acceptance, the right's inherentness gives them nothing.

gr8hands, Harry Hay is part of gay history, like it or not. So is his involvement with the CP and after. As far as I know he wasn't religious. I was contrasting his history with the CP with Bayard Rustin's involvement with the March on Washington. I could have brought up Rustin's involvement with the CP and how he left it when Stalin declared that they were to give up on civil rights in order to pull his ass out of the sling he got into with his non-aggression pact with the Nazis. Though Rustin became a Quaker so he probably benefited from that rift.

eric, different rights would have different definitions. They are those aspects of someone's life, choices, conditions of living, etc. that other people have an obligation to honor as well as imposing a reciprocal obligation on that person. Many of them consist of people being allowed to do things unhampered by other people and the state, in so far as they don't impinge on rights of other people. One of the most important aspects of rights is that they are an inherent possession of people and that their rights are equally entitled to being honored by other people and the state. Equality is one of the most essential aspect of rights, equality is, in itself a right. Equality is a guarantee against the denial or rights of part of the population. Equality of rights means that rights don't exist due to any other quality of a person other than that they are people. Rights aren't granted by the state or by other people, they are an inherent aspect of the person.
Rights can't be assumed to be limited to a specific codification of them, rights which were not realized to inhere to people often become apparent with changing understanding. Rights are real and not imaginary.

I'm curious to know how you define rights if you don't think they are real. Go ahead and tell me why, in light of what's been said about rights here and by other atheists, why I should feel confident that my rights would be better off with materialists than with people who believe that rights are provided by a creator and that there is a moral obligation to observe those rights. I used to believe they would be at least as safe in the hands of atheists as with religious liberals, I've lost my former confidence in that assumption due to what I've read atheists on the blogs say over the past decade. Now I think it was more wishful thinking than anything else.

Jimmy Carter was not a nuclear physicist by training, he was a nuclear engineer and he never did learn how to pronounce it correctly.

Go ahead and tell me why, in light of what's been said about rights here and by other atheists, why I should feel confident that my rights would be better off with materialists than with people who believe that rights are provided by a creator and that there is a moral obligation to observe those rights.

Because we don't just believe your rights should be respected because some deity who threatens hell tells us to. We believe supporting and protecting your rights without any such coercion.

So, you can trust the folks who are helping you because they're afraid if they don't, bad things will happen to them. Or you can trust the folks who are helping you because they honestly want to.

Wow... a bunch of atheists trying to justify themselves by insisting that Jesus Christ (yeah, not JC) wasn't a real person. That the Bible is full of fiction and irrelevant BS. Really?? Jesus Christ was real. He lived and died as both you and I will one day. As for God, he's real too. That said, good luck to each of you. I'll pray for you. Why? Because I can. As a non-believer... well, who are you going to pray to? How can prayer have any relevance if you believe in nothing? Know that God loves you. He wants a relationship with you. I hope you find the wisdom to make the right decision.

Imagine living a life with no hope, no faith, no belief that your life is more than the time spent on this earth. That this is all there is... nothing more, nothing less.

Good luck.

eric, I'm not convinced you believe that rights have a different status from those unicorns and tooth fairies you people are always comparing to God. Rights under materialism seem to have the same status that you assign to religious concepts, that they are imaginary, the product of group consensus having no more reality than you assign to angels or spirits or God. I don't believe for a minute that any society that believes that rights are merely the product of imagination would allow their exercise except to those it wanted to and in those ways it wanted to.

The right of equality was especially vulnerable to attack by materialists, as Galton and Thomas Huxley and other materialists explicitly gave inequality the imprimatur of science and promoted political and social means to give their claims of inequality real consequences for real people. Eugenics was not considered to be anything but science until the crimes of the Nazis were fully known, it was put into effect in North America, which the Nazis explicitly pointed to as supporting their early policies.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Wir_stehen_nicht_all…

Ironically, in the land of it's obscene birth, Britain, it was a Catholic, G. K. Chesterton who waged a campaign against eugenics and prevented it gaining the same legal status it had in the United States, even as it had the support of most of the big names in alleged liberalism - most of them being quite anti-religious - as well as many conservatives. But, then, I pointed out above that both materialism and conservatism consider people as being objects. It's also interesting that as eugenics was becoming all the rage with the materialists, Alfred Russell Wallace, the co-discoverer of natural selection but no materialist, held it in disdain, calling it "the meddlesome interference of an arrogant scientific priestcraft" and "in every way dangerous and detestable".

And neo-eugenics is making a come back now as those with memories of the Second World War die.

I've yet to hear anything from the atheists in this audience that would lead me to believe that they think rights are real. I don't have any confidence that materialists are more reliable guarantors of rights than religious people who believe that they are as real as any physical force or object because they are an endowment from God. Given the topic of the thread and my repeated requests for you to explain how your ideology allows for the reality of rights, you're coming up with nothing to dispel those doubts. I'm not buying that materialism is compatible with liberalism, I don't think that you can really believe that a physical object has rights that you are required to recognize and respect. That's hard enough for people to do consistently when they believe rights are real, I have no confidence that a society that doesn't has any chance of retaining a free, democratic government. Pragmatic selfishness is no substitute for moral restraint.

Anthony 'The Hagfish' McCarthy wrote:

eric, I'm not convinced you believe that rights have a different status from those unicorns and tooth fairies you people are always comparing to God.

Er, how about because rights affect actual living people, for whom most of us have empathy?

This, of course, is something you already know and understand full well; it's only your fundamental dishonesty - fueled by your woo-soaked devotion to spreading anti-science, anti-rational and anti-atheist dogma - that's inspiring you to affect a position of such cluelessness.

'Steven Carr, you do know that the people Jesus is condemning in Matthew 23 are the equivalent of the worst of Biblical fundamentalists today, don't you? '

You are allowed to abuse religious people are you in the most vile terms?

And they must have been really bad people. The Bible says so.

Steven Carr, Jesus was a person, even Christians who believe he was also divine believe that. Maybe he was engaging in hyperbole to make a dent in their conceited self regard. Having argued a lot with arrogant people, it's something one is always tempted to resort to. If you want to get into a quote duel the big heroes of atheism have provided more than enough to make what Jesus said in Matthew 23 sound innocuous. Some of what was said around eugenics is hair raising. Especially those things said within the two decades before the Holocaust. Some of the biggest names in the atheist pan-atheon said and did some pretty horrible things, in retrospect. Many of them were quite cold blooded even outside of the context of what was to come.

Of course, when you look at what Hitchens and Harris and many others have said in the period after the Holocaust, it's clear a lot of them haven't learned much from that event. Which only adds weight to why it's so important for atheists to square their materialism with the reality of rights. I think that's a lot more important than your bound to fail war against religious belief. If the Soviet Union couldn't wipe out religion, I doubt you guys can. But there will be collateral damage, I think there already is.

Anthony the McCarthyist blithered thusly:

Where in materialism do you find a moral requirement for people to observe the rights of glbt people? Where do you find that in science?

We find it in the "materialist" observation that GBLT people are not a threat to anyone, so there's no rational basis to treat them differently from the rest of us. If you had even one scrap of honesty, you'd notice that it's scientists who are flatly disproving all of the ignorant assertions that religious conservatives have made about LGBT people.

(Also, same question back to you: where "in materialism" do you find a moral requirement NOT to observe the rights of LGBT people?)

I'd rather take my chances on Christians like Carter than I would materialists like Coyne...

"Christians like Carter" means the kind of Christians who incorporate what you call "materialism" into their beliefs, and are better people because of it. Using "Chsitians like Carter" to bash "materialism" once again proves what a lying stupid bigot you are.

Also, what, specifically, did this Coyne person say or do to make him less trustworthy than Carter? Your credibility is zero, so you'll need to provide citations, not just assertions.

Worthless troll is worthless.

Of course, when you look at what Hitchens and Harris and many others have said in the period after the Holocaust, it's clear a lot of them haven't learned much from that event.

Specific citations, please, or admit you're full of shit.

Also, Anthony, "Christians like Carter" are the kind of Christians who get viciously attacked by other Christians precisely because they've incorporated what you call "materialism" into their beliefs. Using a target of anti-"materialist" bigotry to justify anti-"materialist" bigotry, is even lower than blaming atheist bloggers for bigotry against Jessica Alquist.

Anthony McCarthyist is so low he needs a twelve-foot ladder to get into Don Imus' Volkswagen.

AMC:

eric, I'm not convinced you believe that rights have a different status from those unicorns and tooth fairies you people are always comparing to God.

If you're asking if I believe there is some platonic form for "freedom of speech" (and other rights) floating around in metaphysical space, you are correct, I don't believe that.

I have no idea what this has to do with you not trusting atheists to support them, though. If an individual thinks gay rights derive from general concepts like self-determination and reciprocity rather than being god-given orders, how does that make them less trustworthy?

I'm not buying that materialism is compatible with liberalism, I don't think that you can really believe that a physical object has rights that you are required to recognize and respect.

Required is the key word there. You feel required to obey god in this matter. I respect and fight for your rights out of my own free choice, not because I feel compelled or required to.

I do it because I think its a good idea on its own merits. I do it because I think equal rights leads to greater peace, prosperity, social stability, and so on. I do it because I have empathy for you. I do it because I'm smart enough to recognize that an unequal system that priveleges me in the short term can easily come back to bite me or my children in the ass over the long term. I do it because I want to leave the world in better shape than it was before I entered it, and supporting people's rights to self-determination is one of the ways I accomplish that.

Look, the belief that rights are god-given clearly doesn't correlate with support for gay rights, since you have religious and non-religious people on both sides of this aisle. So I fail to see why your point would even matter if it were correct. If every single human being throughout history agreed with you that rights have some objective reality, we'd still be arguing about which proposed or hypothetical rights were real ones. Thus, your point solves no argument and goes nowhere.

...I don't think that you can really believe...

Who died and made you the arbiter of what other people can or cannot "really" believe?

This is an example of classic bigotry: the refusal to even suspect that the "other" can be anything other than what the bigot thinks he is.

Self-centered troll is self-centered.

eric, no place did I talk about rights as being unassociated with people, @51 "they [rights] are an inherent aspect of the person". Bringing up "platonic forms" is a dodge to avoid addressing my questions. I asked those questions based in what you and others here have said and what I've been reading from materialists since the time I first picked up a volume on Nietzsche when I was in high school. Materialists have denied the existence of rights for centuries.

I'm finding when challenged to explain that rights have a status as other than imaginary entities, atheists, who spend enormous amounts of time ridiculing imaginary entities, can't do that. They can't account for why rights should be considered to be any more real than the FSM or Hello Kitty.

You haven't addressed what I said about the history of the denial of equality, something that has had terrible consequences in a number of countries including the US and Canada, both in eugenics and scientifically permitted racism. That is something that can be traced directly to materialists in the 19th century. I'm quite sure that they would have little if any problem worrying about their children being attacked by those kinds of laws, even as they supported them as very scientific and even progressive in the case of other peoples' children. I did mention that without the right of equality that kind of thing would happen.

You obviously can't do what I asked you to do because there is no way to account for rights being real under materialism. Materialism considers people to be objects, objects don't have rights. There is no way to explain how people can have rights under the ideology of materialism unless you change the meaning of "rights" to mean something that is imaginary. And people have no problem getting over any reluctance to violate imaginary prohibitions against their exploitation or injuring mere objects. Nothing in your last response supports the idea that rights are anything but make believe, which I find profoundly unencouraging as to their prospects under a regime of materialism. A regime such as those atheist regimes mentioned, the results of which are consistent with that aspect of materialism and its objectification of people.

I've learned a lot from questioning the new atheists online. Just how liberalism is undermined by it, one of the more recent things I've finally admitted. Materialism is the death of liberalism. Leftish libertarianism is not a real replacement for it.

Bee, I think your neurons have suffered colony collapse. Metaphorically speaking.

I'm only going to talk to serious people from now on. The others are just sock puppets with nothing to add but lots to deduct from the conversation.

Imagine living a life with no hope, no faith, no belief that your life is more than the time spent on this earth. That this is all there is... nothing more, nothing less.

Imagine living a life where your time spent on this earth doesn't matter at all because after you die you just actually get more of the same. Things that last forever are not special. Everything you do and everyone you know is immediately devalued. Why bother protecting life, if everyone has a spare? Of course, believing you are actually a ball of mud and dust brought to life by a magic spell doesn't make life sound very worthwhile either, since there's plenty of mud and dust to go around and, since this "God" character of yours is supposed to be all-powerful, plenty of magic spells to create your replacements.

You didn't think this through, did you? Of course you didn't. None of you ever do.

Materialists have denied the existence of rights for centuries.

Name names and provide specific quotes, or admit you're full of shit.

I'm only going to talk to serious people from now on.

Thank you for admitting you've lost the argument. Cowardly troll is cowardly.

Imagine living a life with no hope, no faith, no belief that your life is more than the time spent on this earth. That this is all there is... nothing more, nothing less.

Who the fuck are you talking about, moron? I don't know a single agnostic or atheist who thinks this way. They make the best of the life they have while they have it, and seem no less happy or fulfilled than the theists I know (and a hell of a lot MORE fulfilled than some).

As a matter of fact, I read a story of one person who, when she was a Christian and believed in Heaven, was thinking of killing herself. She figured this life was irredeemably miserable, so why not just skip ahead to the better afterlife her ministers and parents promised her? Then she stopped believing in God or any afterlife (IOW she became what you call a "materialist") -- and suddenly decided that she should work to make her life better because now that she was an atheist, that's all she believed she had.

This "sad meaningless empty atheist life" meme is pure fantasy -- and a pretty sad, meaningless, empty fantasy at that. If you're that desperate to imagine misery behind every face you see, you should probably get help. (I think the proper label is "delusional.")

...there is no way to account for rights being real under materialism.

If rights are made real only by a supernatural being who doesn't even prove its existence, let alone announce or enforce said rights, then they're even LESS real under religion (and more subject to change without notice) than under atheism.

You obviously can't do what I asked you to do because there is no way to account for rights being real under materialism. Materialism considers people to be objects, objects don't have rights.

I have good reasons for treating human beings equally. I listed a bunch of them. That is all I need to support gay rights. I don't need rights to be real in your sense of the word. I don't need them to be god-given.

I haven't addressed your historical arguments because they are fallacious. 'Evil dictator believed x, therefore x-belief will lead to evil behavior' is fallacious reasoning.

I've learned a lot from questioning the new atheists online.

No, I don't think you have. You keep implying that non-believers are going to turn into 19th century eugenicists at first opportunty, even when actual non-believers are telling you to your virtual face that we find those policies abhorrent, would act against them, and that we support civil rights, gay rights, etc.

You seem, in fact, to be ignoring online comments by nonbelievers whenever they don't fit with your preconceived notion of how nonbelievers ought to act. Your line of reasoning is no different from a preacher who says God-belief is needed because otherwise everyone will rape, pillage, plunder, etc... somehow completely ignoring all the millions of non-raping, non-pillaging, non-plundering non-believers.

rb, eric, for support of am's assertion that rights are better protected by the religious, just look at how the religious right is protecting women's rights of access to reproductive care. much better than his hated "materialists" (he seems to have moved on from the "new atheist" enemy he had before).

Oh, wait, the rights of women are under attack by the RR. Never mind.

(cue the "not the religious to whom I was referring" defense)

It seems to me that at least two different definitions of "rights" have been going around. One of them is Anthony McCarthy's (paraphrasing here): aspects of peoples' lives that other people (or governments) are obligated to honor. A second definition would be aspects of peoples' lives that other people (or governments) do in fact honor. So under the second definition, North Koreans do not have the right to criticize their government, but Americans (more or less) do. I tend to prefer the first definition, though the second has its uses.Â I hope that clears some things up.

I think that hardly anyone would dispute that second-definition-rights exist, except those who would dispute nearly all abstractions. Unless you are rather cynical, you should agree that there are indeed certain types of actions that people are permitted by their governments to perform. In various times and places, people have exercised (at least to a limited degree) various religious beliefs, the ability to possess weapons, the receiving of healthcare from their governments, etc. (I have no intention of editorializing on the desirability of those various rights; they are just a few examples.)

The tricky one is the first. It really seems to come down to what your meta-ethics are. I think mine are pretty close to Jason Rosenhouse's as he puts them in this post. But at the end of the day, I don't think meta-ethics matter nearly as much as people assume they do â or to be more precise, that they have nearly as strong an effect on behavior as people assume.

In any case, the meta-ethics argument is frequently wielded against atheism, materialism, reductionism, etc. It holds no weight whatsoever. All the objections raised against the various atheist models of morality can be turned against whatever one's "spiritual" morality is.

For example, some say that without a Creator, good and bad are just our whims or preferences. Yet they can never justify why it's unproblematic for such things to be the Creator's mere whims and preferences.

(Don't tell me there's some fundamental rule that creators deserve to have complete power over their creations. One, that itself needs further justification. Two, that seems to contradict the idea that the source of morality is God, since God apparently didn't make up the "creator is always right" rule. And three, most importantly, it's just wrong. If I were to buid a machine that had thoughtts and feelings, it would have lots of first-definition-rights, regardless of my desires for it.)

Sometimes the argument is made that if we're all "just chemicals", then nothing can have any meaning and thus there can be no right or wrong. The problem is that whatever we and our emotions and minds are, they're going to be "just" something, be it molecules or spirit-stuff. I've never heard a counter-argument that that point which isn't a variation on the divine command morality discussed above (namely: we are created, and thus there is a purpose given to us which "mere" chemicals don't have). Such a counter-argument can be dismissed more or less the same way.

Ultimately, it seems that however morality, ethics, and rights really work, they will, be necessessity, fundamentally be secular, at least in terms of meta-ethics. (For example, prayer could hypothetically be shown to actually work and help people. If it did, then praying for someone to heal would be ethically good behavior, but for ultimately secular reasons.)

Anthony McCarthy said:

Materialism considers people to be objects, objects don't have rights.

This is just a language game, using different common connotations of the word "object". It's like saying that humans can't be as jealous as spinach, because only spinach can be green with envy. Or more fairly, it would be as if I stated that creationists cannot possibly believe that birds can fly, because it is a fact that bird wings are evolved complex structures, but creationists don't think that evolved complex structures exist.

Either we do or don't define "object" such that an object can have rights. If people are objects, the assertion "Some objects have rights" is eminently defensible. On the other hand, if "Objects cannot have rights" is an absolute, then people can never be objects. Simple.

(To put it another way: you can't assume that atheists dispute the existence of everything you consider non-material, and thus believe there is no such thing as love or even sentient experience. One may as well assume that they don't believe in rainbows, since rainbows are a divine sign but atheists don't believe in divine signs.)

Imagine living a life with no hope, no faith, no belief that your life is more than the time spent on this earth. That this is all there is... nothing more, nothing less.

In addition to the other counterpoints, I've never heard anyone explain why the same wouldn't apply to an infinite afterlife. What stops someone in Heaven from asking "Is this all there is?"

In any case, it seems that once we add a Heaven to the mix, then ethics have to become much more complex. Why not murder children if they really, really, really are going to go to a much better place? Why should anyone bother with anything, if the universe accomplishes all our justice for us?

(cue the "not the religious to whom I was referring" defense)

Yeah, that's another big hole in the McCarthyoid's "god-given rights" argument: I can say my rights come from God, and the bigot can invalidate that by saying "That's not the God I believe in."

This is just a language game, using different common connotations of the word "object".

Language games are all this bigoted crank is good for. "Materialist," "scientism," "scientistic fundamentalist," are words the MaCarthyoid always uses, but never defines, no matter how many times he's asked to do so. Like most racists and other bigots, he thinks entirely in abstractions that have no connection to real thinhgs or people, and makes sweeping hateful accusations against labels, without ever specifying which real people he's labeling, let alone citing evidence to support a specific accusation.

dean, if it was only atheists who supported freedom of choice, abortion would be illegal in every state in the country. The vast majority of those who support the right of women to self ownership are religious. The 1.6% who self-identify as atheists are a political footnote. They'd be a slightly longer footnote at 5%. As with the struggle for gay rights, if you knew what you were talking about you'd know that religious people have been part of the fight to legalize abortion and contraception from the start.

If you think I haven't talked about materialists in these discussions from the start and if you don't understand the relationship between atheism and materialism, going back to the before the common era, you don't know what you're talking about.

eric, I'm not worried about you, yourself being able to dispose of rights, I'm worried about the ease with which that can be sold to people when presented as "science" and even more when it merely becomes a mental habit of a species in which indifference for other people seems to be endemic. The history of "scientific" attacks on equality present some of the clearest and most important lessons of the 20th century. That inequality began before natural selection was articulated, when it is coupled with natural selection, it has become stunningly effective in producing depravity.

In the North American context of legally mandated eugenics, speaking English and removed from the context of the Nazis, continuing well into the post-war period and being revived even as its first incarnation was dying, is all real life proof that it couldn't be more of a danger. This week we were presented with the horrific crime of boys being castrated by the corrupt Catholic hierarchy in Belgium during the 1950s. At the same time the Alberta Eugenics Board approved the castration of boys with Downs syndrome, who were sterile, obviously so some curious scientist could study their testicles. What's the difference?

Here's an interview with a woman who was sterilized by the Eugenics Board during the late 50s. Notice what she says about her conversation with Margaret Thompson, the last surviving member of the Board.

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2011/11/14/leilani-muir-successful…

I have learned an enormous amount from reading and discussing things with blog atheists, not much of it very encouraging except in so far as it has made me admit that a lot that I've wanted to believe was unwarranted. When atheism is motivated by materialism and it is mixed with scientism, it becomes an extremely dangerous ideology.

I'd already concluded that most people will be as bad as they figure they can get away with. It doesn't seem to me that granting more reasons for people to not inhibit their selfishness is a really bad thing. I think the new atheist fad could turn out to be a lot more dangerous than I'd first thought when I read Harris contemplating nuking tens of millions of people in a day in "preemptive" attacks. That should have been a lot more of a clue than I thought then.

Lenoxus, if rights that people are prevented from exercising don't really exist, how can any claims to those rights be anything but asserting an unreality? An illusion or, as many prefer these days of pop-psychologizing rhetorical discourse, a delusion? I'd think that a right that isn't realized to be there is no more unreal than an aspect of mathematics that hasn't been discovered or a physical law that hasn't been articulated. I'd be inclined to think it's more real than a lot that is asserted to be science. It's certainly more real than Dawkins and Dennett's Paleolithic Just-so Story "behaviors", which few of the atheists I encounter have no problem believing in with all their hearts.

If you think it's a language game, try doing without your basic rights for a while and then get back to me. Listen to that link I posted for eric above.

That sentence is both incoherent in itself, AND totally unrelated to anything anyone else has said here. Seriously, dumfuck, no one is saying you "haven't talked about materialists;" we're saying you haven't defined your terms, and haven't shown a speck of honesty in any of your incessant bloviation.

The McCarthyoid's latest comment #76 is so incoherent I'm inclined to conclude he's lost the argument and getting upset and flustered about it.

And now you're bringing "eugenics" into a totally unrelated conversation, AND trying to insinuate that the RCC's castration of boys who resisted their tyranny has something to do with "materialism?" Pathologically hateful troll is pathologically hateful.

Why the Hell has this hateful, bigoted, obviously deranged one-track attention-whore not been banned? Seriously, this guy is sinking to the level of Larry Fafarman, who was banned from PT and nearly all SciBlogs without controversy.

Raging Bee --

I'm a hell of a lot closer to banning you than I am to banning Anthony. I don't agree with much of what Anthony says, but he's not the one hurling profanity and calling people names. It looks to me like he presents his points with a minimum of rancor. You, on the other hand, just spew a lot of asinine venom. I don't know why you feel this obsessive need to jump in every time Anthony leaves a comment, but all you're doing is making him look like the calm reasonable one. So knock it off. Final warning.

Raging Bee, I really should tell you should know how encouraging I find it whenever you say I'm incoherent. If you want to worry me, start agreeing.

Oh, and in the context of the Belgium castration case. Consider the choice that Alan Turing was given of either imprisonment or undergoing "chemical" castration when he incomprehensibly outed himself to the cops in Manchester. That was, apparently, part of current science in the early 1950s in Britain. I'd love to know the religious ideology of the psychologists etc. who came up with that "treatment". One thing that is fairly certain, the castration in Belgium violated Cannon Law. The Catholic hierarchy was breaking the law of the Catholic church as certainly as the child rapists were. The doctors who screwed around with Turing's hormones were practicing medical science under the law, no doubt a "treatment" allowed on the basis of science. It's not only religion that sanctions depravity.

Anthony 'The Hagfish' McCarthy:

The doctors who screwed around with Turing's hormones were practicing medical science under the law doing so because of the laws created as a result of the Judeo-Christian religious prohibitions against homosexuality in the Bible, no doubt a "treatment" allowed on the basis of science justified because of the aforementioned Judeo-Christian prohibitions against homosexuality in the Bible.

Fixed it for you.

Or, of course, you could cite the peer-reviewed scientific literature where scientists â independent of any religious motivations - demonstrate that homosexuality is a problem of any kind.

Something tells me, though, you won't do that...

Minor (lol) correction: The Nazi rationale for eugenics was virulently anti-Darwinist, anti-materialist, and wholly religious in nature.

http://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/nazi-racial-ideology-was-reli…

Re Jason Rosenhouse @ #80

Mr. Bee does tend to rage. However, rather then banning him and Mr. McCarthy, I would suggest that both of them be limited as to the number of comments. In particular, Mr. McCarthy has a tendency to dominate certain threads with multiple comments, most of which are far too long and say very little at great length.

In looking at Mr. Bee's comments, I don't see them as being particularly out of line. Over at Ed Brayton's blog and Mano Sangham's blog he has called me a lot worse names. Water off a duck's back I say.

Re J. Quinton @ #83

Actually, the Nazi ideology rejected common descent, as did Frankenberger in Mein Kampf. It was the Communist government in the former Soviet Union that rejected natural selection in favor of inheritance of acquired traits (Lysenkoism).

AMC:

I'm worried about the ease with which that can be sold to people when presented as "science" and even more when it merely becomes a mental habit of a species in which indifference for other people seems to be endemic.

You have not given any reason why it is easier under science than it is under a religion that considers rights to be inherent. Religions that consider rights inherent still argue and disagree over which rights are real and which aren't.

That's the crux of the issue. Not that humanism can go wrong, but whether it is more or less likely to go wrong compared to the alternatives. And not some hypothetical alternative where every religious person believes in Anthony's religious precepts, holds hands, and respects gay rights, but actual historical religious sects like Catholicism, Baptists, etc...

The vast majority of those who support the right of women to self ownership are religious. The 1.6% who self-identify as atheists are a political footnote.

You must understand why that's not the statistic that matters for your argument, right? Would you like to tell me what relevant comparison would be, or do I have to describe it for you?

Don't worry, if you can't, I will. I just figure that maybe you were answering some other question, and if so, you should have first crack at bringing up the statistical comparison that would actually matter for your argument.

I have to object to the use in your headline of the phrase "endless disupute Between Evolution and Creationism". It's good, though, that you wrot 'evolution', not 'evolutinism'.Biologists do not engage in disputes with creationists any more than they do with novelists or sanskritists. Why should the two subjects have nothing to do with each other. Creationists promote one or another of the tales told in Genesis about the creation of the world. The biologists whom creationists attack talk about the origin of species. Biologists assume creation -- that is, that life exists and is all around us -- but they say nothing about how life came about. Nor does anything Creationists (nota bene: upper case 'c')have to say about "the creation" bear on anything biology has discovered. Any biologist who disputes with creationists is on a fool's errand, as futile an exercise as Obama's attempts to get the Republican minority in the Senate, or the new and short-live majority in the House, to help the executive branch faithfully execute the laws.

There are lots of places in any school curriculum for Creationism: history, sociology, logic, philosophy, magic, religions, anthropology, poetry. But there is no place for it in biology or any of the other life sciences. Creationism, by definition, is not about life, but what preceded it.

Biologists must, however, defend themselves, the rest of us, and their science against the fraud being perpetrated by Creationists (most of whom, I judge from their writings, are trained in law or theology, not in any of the sciences).

I have to object to the use in your headline of the phrase "endless disupute Between Evolution and Creationism". It's good, though, that you wrote 'evolution', not 'evolutionism'. Biologists do not engage in disputes with creationists any more than they do with novelists or sanskritists. Why should they? The three subjects have little or nothing to do with each other.

Creationists promote one or another of the truly beautiful and touching tales told in Genesis about the creation of the world and it many wonders. The biologists whom Creationists attack study the origin of species. Biologists assume creation -- that is, they assume that life exists and is all around us -- but they say nothing about how life came about. They don't even speculate about the other planets or the galaxies and the universe itself. They are too modest. Nor does anything Creationists (nota bene: upper case 'c')have to say about "the creation" bear on anything biologists have discovered.

Any biologist who abandons his or her subject to dispute with Creationists is on a fool's errand, as futile an exercise as Obama's attempts to get the Republican minority in the Senate, or its aging two-year majority in the House, to help the executive branch faithfully execute the laws they are all sworn to uphold.

There are lots of places in any school curriculum for Creationism: history, sociology, logic, philosophy, magic, religions, anthropology, poetry. But there is no place for Creationism in biology or any of the other life sciences. Creationism, by definition, is not about life, but what preceded it.

Biologists must, however, defend themselves, and the rest of us as well as their science, against the fraud being perpetrated by Creationists (most of whom, I judge from their writings, are trained in law or theology, not in any of the sciences).

"where every religious person believes in Anthony's religious precepts, holds hands, and respects gay rights"

But doesn't want to actually do anything other than "respect" them.

Remember that.

If God wanted the gays to have rights, they have rights. And if it turns out that they don't magically GET those rights, this must be because God doesn't want them to have those rights.

You have not given any reason why it is easier under science than it is under a religion that considers rights to be inherent. Religions that consider rights inherent still argue and disagree over which rights are real and which aren't. eric

I've done nothing but give reasons for that during this argument.

First, though, my argument isn't that science, itself, negates rights. Science can't deal with the concept of rights because rights aren't physical entities that can be seen and measured. Materialists would have to deny their reality on that basis, as they have been during this argument and as many have in the past. Though, at times, some have redefined the meaning of the word in order to maintain the appearance but denying the reality of the concept.

Science, when it's done honestly, would have to remain agnostic on the existence and nature of rights. But there are scientists from Francis Galton and Thomas Huxley to James Watson and up till now who have articulated a denial of the reality of rights, especially of equality, asserting that their conclusion is based in science. Their inappropriate use of science is, fundamentally, a misapplication of science to extremely complex phenomena which science is, in fact, incompetent to judge. There is no more disastrous application of promissory materialism than eugenics and race "science". Like it or not, natural selection was the idea of science that was most useful to that denial, natural selection contains inequality as it's most basic feature. If you deny that is true, read The Descent of Man and some of Huxley's comments about race. The application of it to human society was never grounded in real science, it was a leap of materialist faith. Human society is far too complex to reliably apply something generally defined to it. And if it was not for that faith in materialism, science might have kept its hands clean, so to speak.

Scientists have not learned enough from the catastrophic mixing of that malignant form of materialist faith with a misapplication of natural selection to keep them from trying it again. Those disasters, from eugenics to the Holocaust should have been enough to show how a fallacious and malignant assertion of science was uniquely potent to end up damaging and killing huge numbers of people. If there's one thing that science is, it's a magnification of human power to do things. Including bad things. But I'll leave commentary on the irony of Steven Weinburg's most famous utterance to another time.

It was a bunch of atheists, Gould, Lewontin, etc. among others, who warned about the revival of that in the post-war period, first in Against "Sociobiology"

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1975/nov/13/against-sociobiolo…

I'd been aware of Arthur Jensen's scientific racism before then and would come to know how much of it there still was after having read their further critique. At the time I had assumed that their anti-scientistic materialism was a more appropriate opponent of what was clearly a very dangerous trend. But in the last thirty five years it's become apparent that it isn't enough, certainly not in the general population and politics where rights have to be protected. The articulation of rights even by well disposed and even honest scientists who are materialists, is not effective. It has not prevented the erosion of liberalism and the increasing attack on its foundations since then.

As I pointed out above, several times, religions that hold that rights are an equal endowment from God is a great advantage to the protection of rights because it begins by considering rights to be as real as materialists consider objects and physical forces to be. As seen in this argument, materialism has to hold that rights are imaginary or the creation of social consensus. I've never heard anyone who believed that equality is one of those rights endowed by God who has held that there are people who don't have at least some rights, though they might not agree about others.

Religion that doesn't hold that belief about rights, obviously, wouldn't be any less potentially malignant than a materialistic denial of them. However, even a number of those have implied rights in some of their moral assertions. I wouldn't, though, think that they are especially reliable in judging questions of equality.

Equality is the key right in society because it forces even very obtuse and selfish people to see that their rights are ensured by it.

I think I've commented enough on these points, though. Reread what I've already said.

Creationism has nothing to do with what I wrote. Though, if you read the early literature of abolitionists you would know that the Bible was frequently where the abolitionists got their arguments from. John Woolman, who talked the Quakers in what would become the United States to give up slavery, is a good example of that. He was certainly more impressive a figure in the history of rights than Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin, though he's certainly less known.

The struggle for gay rights is not a product of science or of materialism, it grows out of the example set by the struggle for racial equality and womens equality.

"I'm a hell of a lot closer to banning you than I am to banning Anthony"

Why?

AMC is trolling.

YOU are letting him troll.

All RB's having a problem with is that AMC is getting the required reaction out of him/her.

But the reason WHY that reaction you so despise is happening is because YOU are letting a whacked out idiot to troll all the time.

In my opinion, merely so you can pretend to yourself that you're being "moderate" and "reasonable".

But you're not.

Letting a whackjob have their say is NOT being reasonable. It's letting the nuttiest nutters drive the argument and is the entire reason why the USA is so fked up: the real nutcases wind their way a gargantuanly extreme way off to one side, then YOU, letting them put one extreme over there, have the idiotic idea that "the truth is somewhere in the middle".

Well guess what, JR, this just ensures that the whack-a-loons like AMC just have to go much much further: if they ask for 3x what they want and you "Compromise" on half, then they're able to ask for 5x what they want next time to get 3/4.

You, sir, are part of the poison.

In a newspaper, it would get labelled "Yellow Journalism" or "False equivalence".

"You have not given any reason why it is easier under science than it is under a religion that considers rights to be inherent"

You have not given any reason why, when the thousands of religions disagree WHICH rights are inherent, it's easier under religion.

You have also not given how, if these rights are considered inherent by religionists, this translates into those rights being held in reality without using the same exact methods that you'd use under science.

PS JR, I notice that you've been unable to answer the rather reasonable question posed by RB:

"Why the Hell has this hateful, bigoted, obviously deranged one-track attention-whore not been banned?"

Why is this one-track pony still here fouling the place up?

"To put it another way: you can't assume that atheists dispute the existence of everything you consider non-material"

I.e. Happiness.

Honour.

Joy.

Passion.

Despair.

Anger.

All non-material. All believed by atheists and "materialists" to be real.

AMC is just a waste of oxygen and the sooner he's off this planet the better.

Oh, and, eric, my argument about the 1.6% of the population who identify themselves as atheists was about the legal and political support for the exercise of the right to reproduction choice. When it comes to politics and the law, the percentage of the population that supports an issue is ultimately relevant to the exercise of rights, certainly in a democracy. My argument was that reproductive choice, just as certainly as gay rights, depends on the support of a group that would necessarily consist mostly of religious believers.

Given the predominance of religious believers in the world I'd go farther and say that any legal or social ability to exercise rights depends on the the support of religious believers. That would include the right of atheists to enjoy equality under the law, which depends on the support of the majority, who are religious believers. But, just as I've told some gay folk for the past forty years, alienating people outside of a small minority group can lose their support. Being obnoxious and rude will have that effect. Not that some people especially welcome that statement of reality.

Even 1.6% of the population has equal rights, those are inalienable, even if that group doesn't believe those rights are real. That doesn't mean that they'll be able to exercise those rights without the agreement of a majority, as history proves.

I wonder what effect the frequent denial of the existence of inherent rights among atheists or the demotion of rights to being imaginary entities (such as they are always mocking) resting merely on social consensus has on the atheists efforts to further their exercise of their rights.

Much of what I see these days is merely an assertion of authority based on presumed superiority instead of an assertion of equality. But I've spent a lifetime assuming that rights were based in equality, not an assertion of unequal rights by a favored class. I don't think you're going to find that the majority will join into a consensus on that idea.

Wow, if you haven't noticed, I'm ignoring you. See also: my last comment to Bee.

How can you be ignoring me when you post to me saying "I'm ignoring you"?

Or are you ignoring me in a non-material sense?

PS You never answer anyone else's questions, so what, in reality, is the difference between you ignoring someone and you trolling this thread as per usual?

I'm ignoring you as a courtesy to the owner of the blog. And because you bore me.

Excuse me, Jason, but Anthony IS calling people names -- he is, in fact, repeating some pretty vile lies about "materialists," including equating them (or maybe "us," depending on his definition of "materialism," which he's hever been honest enough to articulate) with eugenics, sexual abuse of boys by the decidedly non-"materialist" Catholic Church, and even the worst policies of Stalin and Hitler. Given a track record like that, blaming atheist bloggers for the religious bigotry and hate directed at a high-school girl is the LEAST vile of his lies.

He spouts wild accusations against undefined groups of people, refuses to clarify or support any of his charges, and repeats the same groundless charges over and over again, long after they've been disputed and debunked. He knows he's lying, he knows he's been caught lying, and he keeps on repeating the same lies over and over, knowing they've been exposed as lies. And he clearly does this for no purpose other than to monopolize a blog that other people actually read (unlike his own five repetitive crank-sites), and keep attention focused solely on himself and his own longstanding tedious grudges. I know for a fact that I'm not the only one who considers such behavior MORE offensive and vile than merely calling someone a moron or a dumbfuck. I know I'm not the only one who considers lying more offensive than calling a liar a liar.

Allowing a known liar to dump pantload after pantload all over your blog, and then getting sniffy when someone else calls the liar a liar, makes me wonder if you're really paying attention here.

But hey, if that's the kind of "atmosphere" you want for your blog, it's entirely your call. You can let your blog sink to the level of "ERV Monument Lite," and the rest of us can thank you for volunteering your blog to be a toxic waste containment facility of sorts -- even if we can't understand why you'd want to do that.

You have not given any reason why, when the thousands of religions disagree WHICH rights are inherent, it's easier under religion.

More to that point, Wow, it should be noted that when the Founders first claimed inalienable rights given by "our Creator," that claim was NOT uniformly recognized by the populace who supposedly believed in the same Creator. In fact, large numbers of said believers flat-out despised the Founders (especially the heathen anarchist Jefferson), for not being the "right" kind of Christian; and after the Revolution, many of those believers set out to roll back the people's inalienable rights, not to uphold them.

So yeah, our own history clearly shows that rights do not become more secure or "real" when based on supernatural belief.

AMC @90 - you are still not getting it. Citing bad things that materialism philosophy has lead to does not tell me anything about how it compares to religious theologies. What you need to do is compare the percent of atheists who support gay rights to the percent of theists who support gay rights. This will tell you whether humanist philosophies are more or less likely compared to theologies to support gay rights.

Slide 3 of this PEW survey is an example of the sort of data that is relevant to your claim. And look at the results! They show the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim. Unaffiliated people are more likely to support gay rights than any religious group that reported. People whose theologies claim that rights are god-given and inherent reject gay rights in greater numbers than the group that makes no such claim about inherency.

The survey isn't perfect for your question because they asked about affiliation rather than some belief in inherency. But I doubt any survey has asked that question, so we are stuck with the data we have. This data does not support your claim. If it does anything, it supports the opposite claim - a belief that rights are god-given and inherent seems to lead to greater rejection of gay rights compared to a belief that rights are not inherent.

"People whose theologies claim that rights are god-given and inherent reject gay rights in greater numbers than the group that makes no such claim about inherency."

Partly because their god says they have no such rights.

"I'm ignoring you"

Except you're not ignoring me.

"as a courtesy to the owner of the blog."

If you wanted to show courtesy to the owner of the blog, you'd stop posting such vile, unsubstantiated yet grandiose conspiracy nut bollocks.

You are "showing respect" by shitting on this guys dinner plate.

Dr. Rosenhouse, this thread is the exact reason why I don't start my own blog.

You provide insightful, erudite, interesting topics, which bring out thoughtful commentary. Yet, it easily gets polluted by those with an axe to grind and lots of free time (why do zealots always have so much free time?).

I appreciate your efforts to create a welcoming atmosphere, that encourages discussion and enlightenment (with a dash of humor thrown in). It's a tough job, and you do it well.

Re Raging Bee @ #100

Mr. McCarthy has also shown up over at Larry Moran's blog, the Sandwalk, where he, true to form, bad mouths James Randi and posts under a pseudonym.

Larry Moran still has a blog? I haven't been there in a LONG time.

And why is the McCarthyist trashing a guy whose schtick is debunking magic and other obvious BS? I guess, in the McCarthyite 'verse, helping people to think for themselves and detect trickery is part of an evil materialist plot to undermine the fantasies and delusions that make up life as he knows it.

Re Raging Bee @ #106

Mr. McCarthy is commenting at Prof. Moran's blog under the sobriquet The Thought Criminal. He also bad mouthed Mr. Randi, and in addition Martin Gardner, over at Chris Mooney's blog.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/03/richard-dawkins-defends-reason-ral…

gr8hands --

Thanks for the encouragement. Actually, I think I'm pretty fortunate in that most of the people who comment here, even the ones who are critical of me, manage to be civil and stick to the subject of the post. But it only takes a few assholes to mess it up for everyone else.

Time to close this thread.

SLC, what did I say about James Randi and Martin Gardner that was untrue? They're not God, you know. They're not even iGod, uh, Steve Jobs.

Harrisonburg High School Does Les Miserables

jrosenhouse — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:46:06 +0000

Harrisonburg High School Does Les Miserables

If anyone reading this lives near Harrisonburg, Virginia, let me encourage you, in the strongest possible terms, to check out the high school's production of the musical Les Miserables. You have until Sunday. I've seen some good high school shows in my time, but this is really something special. The high school seems to have an exceptionally deep bench of very talented people this year.

I am something of a Les Miz aficionado. I regard it as quite simply the finest novel ever written. I haven't decided what number two is, but it's pretty far back. I even have a vague idea for a book (which I'll probably never write), using Les Miz as a vehicle for discussing connections between literature and mathematics. At any rate, while nothing beats an unabridged version of Victor Hugo's novel, I've long felt the musical does an excellent job of capturing the spirit of the story. It certainly does a far better job than any of the movie adaptations I've seen, especially that dreadful 1998 version with Liam Neeson as Jean Valjean. I've seen two professional productions of the show, and I have listened to the soundtrack so many times that I have most of it memorized.

My point is that when it comes to Les Miz, my standards are high. When I found out the high school was attempting it I was very skeptical, since it is a difficult show to pull off. In this case, my skepticism was misplaced. Badly misplaced. It was so good, I'm planning to see it again tomorrow.

jrosenhouse Wed, 02/15/2012 - 18:46

Tags

Literature

One of my favorite novels as well- one that I periodically re-read...

I wrote a song for my band called Eponine... though I can't pretend to be as much of a fan as you!

It's probably my favourite musical - slightly beating out Sweeney Todd.

I read the book last year and, while I loved it, I found myself vaguely annoyed by some of the translation choices, which - for me - didn't seem right; one I distinctly remember is Valjean saying 'baloney', and there were others that I felt didn't work in the context.

What I suspect I need to do is find a different translation (I can't remember who the one I read was by) - well, either that or learn French and read it in its original state...

How do you feel about the impending big-screen musical version with Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter?

The translation I have is the one by Charles Wilbour included in The Modern Library. Seems like a pretty good translation to me.

I'll go see the movie version of the musical when it comes out. I'm sure it will be enjoyable. The trouble with movie musicals these days is that they always go with A-List stars instead of real Broadway people who usually have stronger voices. For example, the movie version of Chicago was pretty good, but you would never confuse Catherine Zeta Jones, Renee Zelwegger and Richard Gere for Broadway performers.

@ #2

I found myself vaguely annoyed by some of the translation choices

There is a wonderful book on translation (and language) titled, Is That A Fish In Your Ear? Translation and the Meaning of Everything, by David Bellos. A fascinating read for anyone who enjoys the subject of language.

i've seen many musicals in Boston, New York City and the Kennedy Center in Washington D.C.
unlike any of the others this was sheer perfection. BRAVO!

Great review. The production was unusually good for high school. Heck, it was unusually good period. Check out this FB site for photographs of the production.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Les-Mis%C3%A9rables-2012-HHS-Production/…

Nothing beats the unabbridged version? The one with the 100 page historical tour of the Paris sewers? :)

Great Short Stories III: “The Nine Mile Walk” by Harry Kemelman

jrosenhouse — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 17:39:11 +0000

Great Short Stories III: “The Nine Mile Walk” by Harry Kemelman

Time now for the third installment in my series about great short stories. (Previous installments can be found here: Part One and Part Two.)

Today we focus on “The Nine Mile Walk,” by Harry Kemelman. If you are familiar with Kemelman it is probably because of his series of detective novels featuring Rabbi David Small. Kemelman originally wanted to write books about Judaism, but found it too difficult to get such things published. So he embedded discussions of Jewish thought into his mystery novels. The Rabbi novels were also memorable for their subplots, which typically involved the internal politics of the synagogue. Invariably certain members were scheming to get rid of the rabbi for some slight or other.

The present story, however, is not from the Rabbi corpus. It is actually Kemelman's very first story, published in Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine in 1947. It is very short, and is freely available online. It is purely a gimmick story, but what a gimmick! This is one of those truly crackerjack ideas which, if you are really lucky, come to you once in your life. Alas, it is also a gimmick that can only be done once.

Here's the opening:

I had made an ass of myself in a speech I had given at the Good Government Association dinner, and Nicky Welt had cornered me at breakfast at the Blue Moon, where we both ate occasionally, for the pleasure of rubbing it in. I had made the mistake of departing from my prepared speech to criticize a statement my predecessor in the office of County Attorney had made to the press. I had drawn a number of inferences from his statement and had thus left myself open to a rebuttal which he had promptly made and which had the effect of making me appear intellectually dishonest. I was new to this political game, having but a few months before left the Law School faculty to become the Reform Party candidate for County Attorney. I said as much in extenuation, but Nicholas Welt, who could never drop his pedagogical manner (he was Snowdon Professor of English Language and Literature), replied in much the same tone that he would dismiss a request from a sophomore for an extension on a term paper, “That's no excuse.”

There ensues a brief discussion about the perils of drawing inferences. This eventually leads to the following exchange:

“Give me any sentence of ten or twelve words,” he said, “and I'll build you a logical chain of inferences that you never dreamed of when you framed the sentence.”

Other customers were coming in, and since the space in front of the cashier's booth was small, I decided to wait outside until Nicky completed his transaction with the cashier. I remember being mildly amused at the idea that he probably thought I was still at his elbow and was going right ahead with his discourse.

When he joined me on the sidewalk I said, “A nine mile walk is no joke, especially in the rain.”

“No, I shouldn't think it would be,” he agreed absently. Then he stopped in his stride and looked at me sharply. “What the devil are you talking about?”

“It's a sentence and it has eleven words,” I insisted. And I repeated the sentence, ticking off the words on my fingers.

Let the games begin! Welt now holds up his end of the bargain, and begins drawing inferences with all speed. They do lay down a few ground rules early on:

“Next inference: the speaker is not an athlete or an outdoors man.”

“You'll have to explain that one,” I said.

“It's the 'especially' phrase again,” he said. “The speaker does not say that a nine mile walk in the rain is no joke, but merely the walk--just the distance, mind you--is no joke. Now, nine miles is not such a terribly long distance. You walk more than half that in eighteen holes of golf--and golf is an old man's game,” he added slyly. I play golf.

“Well, that would be all right under ordinary circumstances,” I said, “but there are other possibilities. The speaker might be a soldier in the jungle, in which case nine miles would be a pretty good hike, rain or no rain.”

“Yes,” and Nicky was sarcastic, “and the speaker might be one-legged. For that matter, the speaker might be a graduate student writing a Ph.D. thesis on humor and starting by listing all the things that are not funny. See here, I'll have to make a couple of assumptions before I continue.”

“How do you mean?” I asked, suspiciously.

“Remember, I'm taking this sentence in vacuo, as it were. I don't know who said it or what the occasion was. Normally a sentence belongs in the framework of a situation.”

“I see. What assumptions do you want to make?”

“For one thing, I want to assume that the intention was not frivolous, that the speaker is referring to a walk that was actually taken, and that the purpose of the walk was not to win a bet or something of that sort.”

“That seems reasonable enough,” I said.

“And I also want to assume that the locale of the walk is here.”

“You mean here in Fairfield?”

“Not necessarily. I mean in this general section of the country.”

And that's all you're getting for me! Go read the rest, it will only take you a few minutes. Suffice it to say that Welt's chain of inferences eventually leads to a pretty dramatic conclusion. Having mentioned the venue of initial publication, you can probably guess what that conclusion entails.

As I said, the story is very gimmicky. But every time I reread it, as I did moments ago, I have the same reaction Thomas Huxley is said to have had upon reading The Origin of Species: “How very stupid not to have thought of that myself!” It's such a great idea for a story that it's a marvel no one else had thought of it first. I've actually assigned this to students when teaching the “introduction to proofs” class here at JMU. I see it as a light-hearted way of illustrating the power of deductive reasoning.

Is the story deep? No. Does it have great characters or penetrating insights into the human condition? Certainly not. It's just a very, very clever story, and it makes me smile every time I read it. For those reasons it deserves inclusion on any list of great short stories.

jrosenhouse Fri, 12/02/2011 - 12:39

Tags

Literature

The sort of reasoning practiced in the story seems completely different from the type taught in an introduction to proofs class. The basic assumptions are hardly stated with the precision typical of mathematical reasoning.

Yeah, I have to agree with Jr. I don't see what's so brilliant about the story, especially given that the heavy majority of the "inferences" drawn by Mr. Welt are baseless nonsense.

One of the few that makes sense is Welt's conclusion that the distance in question was nine miles, fairly precisely, because nine is not a round number in the way ten or a hundred is; but Welt is broadly full of shit in almost everything else he says.

I mean:

First inference: the speaker is aggrieved.

Groundless. "The speaker" could easily be an omniscient third-person narrator describing (or, what is much the same thing, a less-than-omniscient human retelling a story (s)he heard about) someone else's nine-mile walk.

(Kemelman's narrator, meanwhile, concedes that that inference is "really implicit in the statement." The hell it is. It would seem the story wouldn't work so well if the narrator weren't such a pushover.)

Next inference: the rain was unforeseen, otherwise he would have said, âA nine mile walk in the rain is no joke,â instead of using the âespeciallyâ phrase as an afterthought.

Baloney. The rain could be entirely foreseen, at least so long as the walk wasn't. If I go driving outside of Madras during the annual monsoon and my car breaks down nine miles from wherever I need to be, "A nine mile walk is no joke, especially in the rain" is a perfectly understandable thing for me to say, even though there wasn't the slightest thing unforeseen about that rain.

(Again, the narrator gullibly buys it: "itâs pretty obvious." Pfft.)

Then there's the notion that the speaker (presuming, as already noted unnecessarily, that the speaker and the walker are the same person) "is not an athlete or an outdoors man." At this point the narrator finally grows a spine: "That would be all right under ordinary circumstances ... but there are other possibilities." You don't say.

Welt objects:

âYes,â and Nicky was sarcastic, âand the speaker might be one-legged. For that matter, the speaker might be a graduate student writing a Ph.D. thesis on humor and starting by listing all the things that are not funny. See here, Iâll have to make a couple of assumptions before I continue.â
âHow do you mean?â I asked, suspiciously.
âRemember, Iâm taking this sentence in vacuo, as it were. I donât know who said it or what the occasion was. Normally a sentence belongs in the framework of a situation.â

"Well, tough noogies, Welt. This is your silly challenge; you dared the narrator to come up with a medium-length sentence that you couldn't draw a bunch of extended-but-legitimate inferences from, not a medium-length sentence that you couldn't draw a large number of extended-but-legitimate inferences from as long as you were allowed to add a bunch of unfounded premises to it. A one-legged 'walker,' a linguistics student writing a paper on what 'no joke' means, a soldier hiking in the jungleâdamn right, those are potential contexts in which the sentence in question makes sense and yet frustrates your ability to draw reasonable inferences from it. They are reasons why you lose, Welt."

Kemelman needs to get somewhere different, though, so his narrator folds again. ...And so on.

It's hard, at least for me, to suspend disbelief when the story's resident genius is allowed to get away with silliness after silliness. That Welt ends up deducing what he deduces provides somewhat of a hint (a la the mathematical proof of God's existence described in Sagan's novel Contact) that Welt's universe is the creation of an omnipotent beingâthe one named Harry Kemelman.

That was wonderful!

I now have to buy a deerstalker hat, a calabash pipe stuffed with coarse tobacco, and hang about cafes eavesdropping on patrons. So many unsolved crimes, so little time. ;D

Rieux --

I'm sorry you didn't like the story, but I don't find your criticisms at all persuasive. Welt and the narrator are just playing an intellectual game. There's no bet here, so it does not make sense to refer to Welt winning or losing. Moreover, Welt's insistence that some assumptions be made regarding the context of the sentence seems perfectly reasonable, and the assumptions Welt makes are really pretty innocuous. The narrator is not “folding” by granting them, he was just curious to see where things would go. Are you really suggesting the story would have been more plausible if the narrator had shut down an interesting conversation with a friend by saying, “No, I will not grant you even the slightest assumption regarding the context of the sentence. I reject your attempt to give a plausible context because I can think of wildly implausible contexts in which your inferences would be unreasonable,”?

And Welt does not say he is going to infer absolute certainties from the sentence. After all, as far as he knows at the start of the story (later revelations notwithstanding) this is just a completely made up sentence that no actual person actually said. The whole point of the exercise was to show that it's easy to draw inferences that seem perfectly reasonable and yet have no connection to reality. As Kemelman makes clear at the end of the story, the fact that in this case the inferences actually are connected to reality is part of the fun.

Each link in Welt's chain is sufficiently plausible, and the manner in which he analyzes the sentence is sufficiently clever, to make the story very enjoyable. None of his inferences are silly or absurd, and they unfold in a way that is very natural. In my opinion, at any rate.

It's a great story.

The very best thing about it is that it is very instructive on how to write a story starting from the end - because it seems quite obvious that that is what he did

any criticisms of it will be to do with just how well or not he stitched the beginnings together to make them seem like they were random in heading in the already devised direction

very clever

pop

Jason:

I'm sorry you didn't like the story....

Oh, no need for that. You liked it, I didn'tâthere may be some "accounting for taste," but not much. I sort of liked Dude, Where's My Car?, so I'm in no position to demand that you cater to my literary preferences. I just won't be asking you for recommendations for fiction.

I find Nicky Welt cloying and absurd, but those adjectives certainly don't apply to Jason Rosenhouse.

Now, then:

Welt and the narrator are just playing an intellectual game. There's no bet here....

That's certainly not how I read it. Especially given the narrator's reference to the dust-up in the introduction ("I had made the mistake of departing from my prepared speech to criticize a statement my predecessor in the office of County Attorney had made to the press. I had drawn a number of inferences from his statement and had thus left myself open to a rebuttal which he had promptly made and which had the effect of making me appear intellectually dishonest."), the story makes it clear that there's some minor bad blood between the narrator and Welt: "That's no excuse."

These guys do have something at stakeâspecifically, Welt's performance is supposed to be a demonstration that his criticism of the narrator's earlier behavior has merit. And maybe it does, but the crazy chain of generally dubious inferences Welt engages in sure doesn't show anything of the kind. (Seems to me I'm playing the role of the former County Attorney in this exchange, while Welt and you as his proxy are cast in the narrator's role. "That's no excuse," Nicky.)

Welt's insistence that some assumptions be made regarding the context of the sentence seems perfectly reasonable....

"Some," sure. The "no joke" sentence is a string of English words, so it's fair to presume that the basic rules of English grammar, syntax, and definition apply. But in light of Welt's utter failure to demand a background context in his challenge (and the narrator's understandable failure to provide one), Welt's insistence on simply assuming away the soldier in the jungle, the one-legged walker, and the Ph.D. student studying humor have no grounds whatever. Those are all perfectly coherent and possible contexts for the sentence at issue; Welt (Kemelman) rejects them only because his boast can't handle them.

The narrator is not âfoldingâ by granting them, he was just curious to see where things would go.

Then it would appear that I would have done a better job at meeting the narrator's motivationâdefending his honor and deflating his bigmouthed critic ("That's no excuse" indeed)âthan the guy did himself. Some County Attorney!

Are you really suggesting the story would have been more plausible if the narrator had shut down an interesting conversation with a friend by saying, âNo, I will not grant you even the slightest assumption regarding the context of the sentence. I reject your attempt to give a plausible context because I can think of wildly implausible contexts in which your inferences would be unreasonable,â?

It's not denying "even the slightest assumption"; sentences are sentences, and meaning can therefore be inferred from them. (Same goes for non-round numbers such as nine.) But the notion that the contextual issues the characters raiseâsoldier, one-leg, Ph.D. studentâare "wildly implausible" seems to me absurd. There's nothing "wildly implausible" about those, and there's especially nothing implausible about the contextual issue I raised but the characters ignoredâthat there isn't the slightest indication that the speaker and the walker are the same person.

The narrator, for all the reader and Welt are aware, simply pulled that sentence out of thin air. Simply assuming away an third-party narrator or a soldier struggling through the jungle (two extremely common tropes in both literature and real life) is, in that context, utterly unwarranted.

Would the story have been more plausible if the narrator had stuck to his guns on those points? Well, yes, I think clearly it would. That would certainly have served the narrator's (mildly resentful) motivation far better than letting Welt walk all over him did. The story would have been a bit pointless and dumb if the narrator had represented his position the way a competent attorney would, and it certainly wouldn't have gotten Kemelman to his swell mystery-magazine denouement, but what can I say? Story logic and suspension of disbelief are harsh mistresses.

And Welt does not say he is going to infer absolute certainties from the sentence.

No, just reasonable inferences. And they're not. You simply can't reasonably infer that "the speaker is aggrieved" by a nine-mile walk when you don't even have a basis to believe that the speaker did the walking. Q.E.D., no?

Great Short Stories II: “Something Green” by Fredric Brown

jrosenhouse — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:46:14 +0000

Great Short Stories II: “Something Green” by Fredric Brown

Today we continue our series about great short stories. (Click here for Part One.)

For several decades Fredric Brown was a prolific author of mysteries and science fiction, producing most of his work in the 1940's and 50's. I could have chosen several of his works for inclusion in this series. “Arena” s perhaps his most famous story, both for its own merits and for its adaptation into a memorable episode of Star Trek (Captain Kirk vs. the Gorn!) And while I have quite a few of his novels and story anthologies sitting on my shelf (lovingly rescued from the shelves of various used bookstores over the years), I'm afraid I have only read a small portion of his output. But for me there is one of his stories that is so powerful and memorable that it was the clear choice for this series. I'm referring to a virtually unknown and very short story called “Something Green.” Here's the opening, to whet your appetite:

The big sun was crimson in a violet sky. At the edge of the brown plain, doted with brown bushes, lay the red jungle.

McGarry strode toward it. It was tough work and dangerous work, searching in those red jungles, but it had to be done. And he'd searched a thousand of them; this was just one more.

He said, “Here we go, Dorothy. All set?”

The little five-limbed creature that rested on his shoulder didn't answer, but then it never did. It couldn't talk, but it was something to talk to. It was company. In size and weight it felt amazingly like a hand resting on his shoulder.

He'd had Dorothy for -- how long? At a guess, four years. He'd been here about five, as nearly as he could reckon it, and it had been about a year before he'd found her. Anyway, he assumed that Dorothy was of the gentler sex, if for no better reason than the gentle way she rested on his shoulder, like a woman's hand.

Now, this is one of those stories that really has no point until you reach the ending. So I'm going to be spoiling pretty much everything about it. On the other hand, the story is sufficiently short that the excerpts and summaries I'm about to present will probably be enough to make you feel like you've read the whole thing.

Over the next few paragraphs we learn that McGarry is marooned on planet Kruger III, having crash-landed there roughly five years before. He knows that a previous astronaut from Earth, named Marley, had crash-landed there many years before. There's a very faint hope that if he can find that other ship he might also find the parts he needs to repair his own and get off the planet. He has no idea where to look, and after so many years the parts may not be functional anyway, but it is his only chance so he grimly keep's looking.

We also learn that he has a solar-powered weapon that has protected him from the planet's many predators. In the paragraphs that follow, keep in mind that the “lion” being referred to is simply a creature on Kruger III that looks vaguely like an Earth lion:

He stopped ten paces short of the edge of the red jungle and aimed the sol-gun at the bushes behind which the lion crouched. He pulled the trigger and there was a bright green flash, brief but beautiful -- oh, so beautiful -- and the bushes weren't there any more, and neither was the lion.

McGary chuckled softly. “Did you see that, Dorothy? That was green, the one color you don't have on this bloody red planet of yours. The most beautiful color in the universe, Dorothy. Green! And I know where there's a world that's mostly green, and we're going to get there, you and I. Sure we are. It's the world I came from, and it's the most beautiful place there is, Dorothy. You'll love it.”

From here we learn more about Kruger III. We find out that the side of the planet McGarry is on exists in perpetual daylight. He never crosses over to the dark side of the planet, finding it far too dangerous. There are no seasons, just persistent sameness. We also learn that it's really not such a bad place to live, save for the fact that it possesses nothing that is green. We learn further that Earth is the only known planet to possess green things in such profusion.

Then, one day, a space ship form Earth lands on the planet. McGarry is able to signal the pilot by firing the gun into the air. The bright green flash on a planet with no other green catches the pilot's attention. The pilot is named Archer, and he tells McGarry that it would be no problem at all to rescue him from the planet. They can take off as soon as the engines cool sufficiently for a take-off. While they are waiting, McGarry tells Archer about what had happened to him.

They sat in the shadow of a brown bush, and McGarry told him about it, everything about it. The five-year search for the other ship he'd read had crashed on the planet and which might have intact the parts he needed to repair his own ship. The long search. About Dorothy, perched on his shoulder, and how she'd been something to talk to.

And that is when McGarry gets some unexpected news.

But somehow, the face of Lieutenant Archer was changing as McGarry talked. It grew more solemn, even more compassionate.

“Old timer,” Archer asked gently, “what year was it when you came here?”

McGarry saw it coming. How can you keep track of time on a planet whose sun and seasons are unchanging? A planet of eternal day, eternal summer --

He said flatly, “I cam here in twenty-two forty-two. How much have I misjudged, Lieutenant? How old am I -- instead of thirty, as I've thought?”

“It's twenty-two seventy-two, McGarry. You came here thirty years ago. You're fifty-five. But don't let that worry you too much. Medical science has advanced. You still have a long time to live.

McGarry said it softly. “Fifty-five. Thirty years.”

The lieutenant looked at him pityingly. He said, “Old timer, do you want it all in a lump, all the rest of the bad news? There are several items of it. I"m no psychologist but I think maybe it's best for you to take it now, all at once, while you can still throw into the scale against it the fact that you're going back. Can you take it McGarry?”

McGarry is crushed, but the thought of returning to Earth is sufficiently comforting to convince him that he can handle it. Archer continues

You've done wonderfully for thirty years, McGarry. You can thank God for the fact that you believed Marley's spacer crashed on Kruger III; it was Kruger IV. You'd have never found it here, but the search, as you say, kept you -- reasonably sane.” He paused a moment. His voice was gentle when he spoke again. “There isn't anything on your shoulder, McGarry. This Dorothy is a figment of your imagination. But don't worry about it; that particular delusion has probably kept you from cracking up completely.”

Merely having the delusion pointed out to him is sufficient to dispel it. McGarry explains that he thinks he never really believed in Dorothy, but was simply desperate for company. He tells Archer that, distraught though he is, the fact that he will soon be on Earth will get him through it.

And that's when Archer unleashes one last piece of bad news. Perhaps you can guess what it is.

Lieutenant Archer was shaking his head slowly. Not back to Earth, old-timer. To Mars if you wish, the beautiful brown and yellow hills of Mars. Or, if you don't mind heat, to purple Venus. But not to Earth, McGarry. Nobody lives there anymore.”

“Earth is -- gone? I don't --”

“Not gone, McGarry. It's there. But it's black and barren, a charred ball. The war with the Arcturians, twenty years ago. They struck first, and got Earth. We got them, we won, we exterminated them, but Earth was gone before we started. I'm sorry, but you'll have to settle for somewhere else.

Archer goes on a bit longer, then explains they should now be able to take off.

[Archer] stood up and started toward the little spacer.

McGarry's sol-gun came out of its holster. McGarry shot him, and Lieutenant Archer wasn't there anymore. McGarry stood up and walked to the little spacer. He aimed the sol-gun at it and pulled the trigger. Part of the spacer was gone. Half a dozen shots and it was completely gone. Little atoms that has been the spacer and little atoms that had been Lieutenant Archer of the Space Patrol may have danced in the air, but they were invisible.

McGarry put the gun back into its holster and started walking toward the red splotch of jungle near the horizon.

He put his hand up to his shoulder and touched Dorothy and she was there, as she'd been there now for four of the five years he'd been on Kruger III. She felt, to his fingers and to his bare shoulder, like a woman's hand.

He said, “Don't worry, Dorothy. We'll find it. Maybe this next jungle is the right one. And when we find it --”

McGarry now fires his gun to kill an approaching predator.

McGarry chuckled softly. “Did you see that, Dorothy? That was green, the color there isn't much of on any planet but the one we're going to. The only green planet in the system, and it's the one I came from. You'll love it.

She said, “I know I will, Mac.” Her low throaty voice was completely familiar to him, as familiar as his own; she'd always answered him. He reached up his hand and touched her as she rested on his naked shoulder. She felt like a woman's hand.

McGarry then returned grimly to his search. The End.

I first read that story in high school. It blew me away then, and it did so again just now as I reread it for this post. After putting the book down after reading it I thought, “Yes! That's exactly what people do!” Given the choice between a comforting delusion and painful reality, the delusion just becomes more entrenched.

Since high school I've met McGarry over and over again. His disciples have been out in force at every creationist conference I have ever attended. When everyone is congratulating everyone else for the strength of their delusions, it is easy to start wondering if maybe you are the deluded one. I see it in so much apologetic and theological writing, where religious demagogues write with absurd levels of arrogance and smugness of the “obvious” truth of their tradition or holy book. I see it in modern Republican politicians and in right-wing economic theorists and in the uncomprehending voters who place these guys in office, oblivious to the fact that they are being conned into voting against their interests.

I see it over and over again. And who knows? Maybe ignorance really is bliss. Maybe the McGarry's of the world are on to something.

I'm not one inclined to describe fictional stories as &true” when I really mean simply that the story communicates something I believe to be true. Mostly I think it is absurd to talk about different sorts of truth. But “Something Green” makes me come as close as I ever have to changing my mind on that. This story is true, dammit. In just under two thousand words it says something deep and important about the human condition. What more can you ask for from a short story?

jrosenhouse Thu, 10/27/2011 - 14:46

Tags

Literature

Everything Fredric Brown wrote was wonderful, but I have a soft spot for the first book I read of his as a teenager: Nightmares and Geezenstacks, a collection of ultra-short stories. Some only a page long, and as good as the one Jason describes here. If you can buy any Fredric Brown book, it is money well spent.

Do you watch The Living Dinosaur Jason? Your upcoming books makes a very brief cameo early in his latest anti-creationist PPSimmons pwnage video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XXhfs4W8Qs

Given it's not out yet, I suspect he might be a fan.

If you aren't familiar with TLD, his videos are definitely not safe for work.

But they are oh so funny.

Yeah, I read that story in high-school too, a long time ago. But I think of it from time to time still.

You left out what I consider the best part, what finally drives McGarry over the edge (IIRC): Archer tells him most of what remains of humanity lives on Mars, where everything is orange. Orange, not green. McGarry had really been looking forward to Earth's pervasive green.

Even more disturbing is the thought (maybe the implication, I suppose) that Archer was not the first to make it to Kruger III and explain the situation to McGarry.

BathTub --

I just had a chance to watch the video. That was fantastic! I had never seen his work before, but I had to pause it a few times because I was laughing so hard. What an honor to have the cover of my book flash on the screen, if only for a few seconds.

You might look at some of the Baha'i writings about creation and evolution. Don't dismiss it without looking.

Have a good read,

Frank

Fantastic post I very much enjoyed it, keep up the good work.

good I read that story in high-school too, a long time ago. But I think of it from time to time still. bestere yapamanr short somethi oluÅmenelire raÄmen ististanlerÄ±d olÅan bir yapÄ±snÄ±da verilenes bir geliÅtirmedir. iÅte bu hedefalarak yola Ã§Ä±kan ismekistanbul belediseyenedenaldÄ±ÄÄ±n gÃ¼Ã§cÃ¼yle bizelere kurdelenakÄ±ÅÄ±ndan iÄneoyasÄ±naÅiÅÃ¶rgÃ¼lerinden elsanatlarÄ±ndoakadar, birÃ§okalanda faliyet gÃ¶sterir. ismekkurdele yapÄ±lankursiyerlerin kendilerine olana gÃ¼venlerikazanmaktadÄ±r.

There is a large variety of non-green horticultural plants available. I have thought a little about designing a non-green garden; one with no green plants. I didn't get very far before I found the idea very unsettling, and abandoned it.

I read that story back in 7th grade and I'm trying to find it online. Does anyone know where I can read it online?

Great Short Stories I: “The Problem of Cell 13” by Jacques Futrelle

jrosenhouse — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 21:53:42 +0000

Great Short Stories I: “The Problem of Cell 13” by Jacques Futrelle

This is the first in what will be an occasional series about some of my favorite short stories. These are the sorts of stories that remind me of what I aspire to as a writer. They are the ones I enjoy partly for their engaging plot lines, and partly for the skillfulness of the writing itself. The ones I go back and reread periodically even though I've already memorized most of the dialogue. They have given me so much satisfaction over the years that I feel compelled to share them with everyone else.

This first entry addresses my very favorite short story of all time: “The Problem of Cell 13” by Jacques Futrelle. This post s a somewhat revised version of an essay I first posted here a little over five years ago. Enjoy!

I have always had a soft spot for prison break stories, and “The Problem of Cell 13” must surely be the best, or at least the most imaginative, such tale ever written. Published in 1906, it was one of some forty-eight stories to feature Professor S. F. X Van Dusen, nicknamed the Thinking Machine. Van Dusen was one of those fictional, eccentric detectives who could, with a few moments thought from his armchair, solve problems that had utterly baffled the police. Most of the Thinking Machine stories featured impossible situations of one kind or another: murders in locked rooms, thefts out of heavily guarded museums, motor cars that seemed to disappear from the middle of streets being watched on both sides, that sort of thing.

The stories were rather uneven in quality, though most managed to be highly enjoyable. But Cell 13 stands so head and shoulders above the rest you would almost think it was written by a different person. My father first showed me the story when I was in middle school, and I've been rereading it over and over again ever since. The story's gimmick is brilliant, and the execution is flawless.

Futrelle tragically died on the Titanic in 1912.

The Modern Library recently published a new anthology of the best Thinking Machine stories. It features an introduction by Harlan Ellison, who describes Cell 13 this way:

Oh, baby! What an epiphany. What a mortal lock sweetie of a story. I was knocked out by it. Blown away. A guy who could solve such unfathomable problems just using his wits and his intelligence. I don't know about you, but for a smart kid in a small Ohio town, it was a beacon. It was that illuminating moment when you understand the unarguable truth of Pasteur's admonition that “Chance favors the prepared mind.”

So what's the plot line? Well, this excerpt from the story's opening states it pretty clearly:

Dr. Ransome laughed tolerantly. “I've heard you say such things before,” he said. “But they mean nothing. Mind may be master of matter, but it hasn't yet found a way to apply itself. There are some things that can't be thought out of existence, or rather which would not yield to any amount of thinking.”

“What, for instance?” demanded The Thinking Machine.

Dr. Ransome was thoughtful for a moment as he smoked. “Well, say prison walls,” he replied. “No man can think himself out of a cell. If he could, there would be no prisoners.”

“A man can so apply his brain and ingenuity that he can leave a cell, which is the same thing,” snapped The Thinking Machine.

Dr. Ransome was slightly amused. “Let's suppose a case,” he said, after a moment. “Take a cell where prisoners under sentence of death are confined -- men who are desperate and, maddened by fear, would take any chance to escape -- suppose you were locked in such a cell. Could you escape?”

“Certainly,” declared The Thinking Machine.

“Of course,” said Mr. Fielding, who entered the conversation for the first time, “you might wreck the cell with an explosive -- but inside, a prisoner, you couldn't have that.”

“There would be nothing of that kind,” said The Thinking Machine. “You might treat me precisely as you treated prisoners under sentence of death, and I would leave the cell.”

“Not unless you entered it with tools prepared to get out,” said Dr. Ransome.

The Thinking Machine was visibly annoyed and his blue eyes snapped. “Lock me in any cell in any prison anywhere at any time, wearing only what is necessary, and I'll escape in a week,” he declared, sharply.

Dr. Ransome sat up straight in the chair, interested. Mr. Fielding lighted a new cigar.

“You mean you could actually think yourself out?” asked Dr. Ransome.

“I would get out,” was the response.

“Are you serious?”

“Certainly I am serious.”

Dr. Ransome and Mr. Fielding were silent for a long time. “Would you be willing to try it?” asked Mr. Fielding, finally.

“Certainly,” said Professor Van Dusen, and there was a trace of irony in his voice. “I have done more asinine things than that to convince other men of less important truths.”

That, my friends, is what we in the writer biz refer to as good dialogue. After this passage Dr. Ransome and Mr. Fielding arrange with the local prison warden to try the experiment. The Thinking Machine is taken that very night from his study and placed in the darkest, dankest, death row cell you can imagine. Futrelle describes the scene so skillfully that by the end of it you are thinking, “This is crazy. There's no way he's going to escape from that cell.”

Well, I really don't think I will be spoiling anything if I tell you that the Thinking Machine does, indeed, escape. Moreover, he manages to create quite a bit of chaos in the prison prior to doing so. The mechanism by which he escapes, while not exactly plausible, is nonetheless totally satisfying. No laws of physics are broken, but the Thinking Machine does catch a few lucky breaks.

Cell 13 has never been made into a movie, but, MacGyver once escaped from a prison cell by essentially the same mechanism in this memorable second season episode.

One reason I like this story so much is for the story itself. It's a real page-turner. But I also find something very inspiring about it. It's hard to imagine any situation more hopeless than the one in which the Thinking Machine finds himself at the start of the story. I mean, there is nothing in his cell, and multiple layers of security between him and freedom. Yet he voluntarily puts himself in that situation, absolutely confident that his own ingenuity will be sufficient to turn whatever he finds into an effective plan of escape. Here's how it plays out:

“Here is Cell 13,” said the warden, stopping three doors down the steel corridor. “This is where we keep condemned murderers. No one can leave it without my permission; and no one in it can communicate with the outside. I'll stake my reputation on that. It's only three doors back of my office and I can readily hear any unusual noise.”

“Will this cell do, gentlemen?” asked The Thinking Machine. There was a touch of irony in his voice.

“Admirably,” was the reply.

The heavy steel door was thrown open, there was a great scurrying and scampering of tiny feet, and The Thinking Machine passed into the gloom of the cell. Then the door was closed and double locked by the warden.

“What is that noise in there?” asked Dr. Ransome, through the bars.

“Rats -- dozens of them,” replied The Thinking Machine, tersely.

The three men, with final good-nights, were turning away when The Thinking Machine called:

“What time is it exactly, warden?”

“Eleven seventeen,” replied the warden.

“Thanks. I will join you gentlemen in your office at half-past eight o'clock one week from to-night,” said The Thinking Machine.

“And if you do not?”

“There is no `if' about it.”

My kind of guy!

Let me close with one more excerpt from the story. The Thinking Machine has made his escape and has appeared suddenly in the warden's office, accompanied by a local reporter named Hutchinson Hatch. The following exchange takes place. Be warned that there are some spoilers ahead, but I frankly think that they will just whet your appetite even more.

[The Thinking Machine] squinted belligerently at the warden, who sat with mouth agape. For the moment that official had nothing to say. Dr. Ransome and Mr. Fielding were amazed, but they didn't know what the warden knew. They were only amazed; he was paralyzed. Hutchinson Hatch, the reporter, took in the scene with greedy eyes.

“How -- how -- how did you do it?” gasped the warden, finally.

“Come back to the cell,” said The Thinking Machine, in the irritated voice which his scientific associates knew so well.

The warden, still in a condition bordering on trance, led the way.

“Flash your light in there,” directed The Thinking Machine.

The warden did so. There was nothing unusual in the appearance of the cell, and there -- there on the bed lay the figure of The Thinking Machine. Certainly! There was the yellow hair! Again the warden looked at the man beside him and wondered at the strangeness of his own dreams.

With trembling hands he unlocked the cell door and The Thinking Machine passed inside. “See here,” he said.

He kicked at the steel bars in the bottom of the cell door and three of them were pushed out of place. A fourth broke off and rolled away in the corridor.

“And here, too,” directed the erstwhile prisoner as he stood on the bed to reach the small window. He swept his hand across the opening and every bar came out.

“What's this in the bed?” demanded the warden, who was slowly recovering.

“A wig,” was the reply. “Turn down the cover.”

The warden did so. Beneath it lay a large coil of strong rope, thirty feet or more, a dagger, three files, ten feet of electric wire, a thin, powerful pair of steel pliers, a small tack hammer with its handle, and -- and a Derringer pistol.

“'How did you do it?” demanded the warden.

“You gentlemen have an engagement to supper with me at halfpast nine o'clock,” said The Thinking Machine. “Come on, or we shall be late.”

“But how did you do it?” insisted the warden.

“Don't ever think you can hold any man who can use his brain,” said The Thinking Machine. “Come on; we shall be late.” (Emphasis Added)

I just never get tired of that boldface line! And fear not. The remainder of the story provides a very detailed explanation of precisely how he did it...

jrosenhouse Sun, 10/09/2011 - 17:53

Tags

Literature

"Cell 13" is indeed the best of The Thinking Machine stories and one wonders what extraordinary thing Futrelle would have had to accomplish had he been granted a long enough life in which to surpass it.

http://www.futrelle.com/stories/TheProblemOfCell13.html

OT but apparently, there is a film being made of one of Lee Child's Reacher novels staring, get this, Tom Cruise! Mr. Cruise is described in IMDB as being 5'7" tall and probably weighs 150 lbs soaking wet. Mr. Reacher is described in the novels as being 6'5" tall and weighing 250 lbs. ROTFLMAO.

SLC - Anne Rice made the same complaint about the selection of Cruise to play Lestat in Interview. Then she changed her mind after seeing the finished movie.

Without making any comment regarding his acting ability, I don't really think his height (or lack of it) negatively impacted his ability to play the role. And that was 17 years ago. With current special effects, if they want him to be tall, I'm sure he'll be tall.

Re eric @ #4

1. Ms. Rice's initial objection to Mr. Cruise appears to be based on his acting ability, his personnel appearance, and his previous choice of roles, which did not, in her opinion, bode well for casting him as a vampire.

2. If Hollywood can make the 5'7" 160 lb Cruise look like a 6'5" 250 lb man, that will be some accomplishment.

http://www.angelfire.com/ri/cerat/AnneOnTom.html

If Hollywood can make the 5'7" 160 lb Cruise look like a 6'5" 250 lb man, that will be some accomplishment.

Do you really find it that unbelieveable?

Its an accomplishment, yes. On the same order of Jackson's LOTR, where they made a 5'6" Elijah Wood look 3'6" tall next to Ian McKellan. They can 'gandalf' Cruise or 'hobbit' everyone around him, but either way, I would bet you a lot of money that special effects are already up to the challenge of a 12% apparent size increase.

No movies of "Cell 13" but two TV adaptations, one back in the early 60's on Suspense Theater (I think it was called) and one in the 70's on a British series called "The Rivals of Sherlock Holmes".

If this is the story where the guy ties a note to a rat, I thought it so implausible that I still remember the disappointment 30 years later.

Re eric @ #6

Of course, Tinseltown has been making short actors appear taller for a long time (the late Alan Ladd, who was even shorter then Mr. Cruise, used to stand on a box when appearing in closeups with taller female actors). However, they not only have to make Mr. Cruise appear taller, they have to make him appear broader (e.g. some 100 lbs heavier then he actually is). I understand the reason to put an A list actor in the role but it would be a lot easier to cast, say, Howie Long who was mentioned in an earlier thread on this blog when the subject of who might play the role of Reacher came up.

http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2010/10/random_stuff.php

I'm with Greg at #8. For all his bluster, and as he admits at the end, if cell 13 didn't have that entirely fortuitous feature (which he exploits brilliantly), the Thinking Machine would be totally screwed.

Greg and Dave M --

Were you expecting a plausible method for escaping from a jail cell? Lighten up, guys. Futrelle was pretty clearly acknowledging the implausibility of the story by pointing out the various lucky coincidences the Thinking Machine made use of. I liked it when the Thinking Machine pompously claims that he had at least two other escape methods, without ever telling us what those methods were.

SLC and others --

I'm glad to hear they're finally going to make a movie out of the Reacher series, but I agree that Tom Cruise is a poor choice. He not only doesn't look the part, he's also too old. How about the guy who played Thor? He's more the way I picture Reacher.

See Nick Overlook --

Thanks for the information. I wonder if either of those adaptations is available on DVD.

Re Jason Rosenhouse @ #11

According to IMDB, Mr. Cruise is 49, which is only a few years older then Reacher who is described as being in his early 40s. That would be the least of my objections to him.

I assume that Prof. Rosenhouse is referring to Chris Hemsworth who is described as being 6'3" and probably tips the scales at 200 lbs or more, judging by his photographs. However, Mr. Hemsworth is too young at 28 which is much younger then Reacher's early 40s.

==Were you expecting a plausible method for escaping from a jail cell? ===

Given the boast of The Thinking Machine, yes. The author's apparent goal is to establish the brilliance of The Thinking Machine and the only way to have done this in this story would have been to show that the escape was inevitable, not due to chance. Therefore, The Thinking Machine comes across as being rather foolish in his boast.

But I think this is a perennial problem when you have a non-brilliant author attempting to portray a character of extraordinary intelligence. Even the logic demonstrated by the better-drawn character of Sherlock Holmes doesn't really stand up to rigorous examination.

I just read it at the link given in comment #2. Yes, it's a great short story, but it seems to end abruptly with "Let the fifth man go. He's all right." Is that the actual ending, or was the story truncated?

Re sesli chat

Let's quit beating around the bush here. What they have to do to realistically portray Reacher is make Mr. Cruise look like Clint Walker. Rots of ruck on that one.

Just read "Cell 13". Absolutely brilliant. the lucky coincidences remind me of the adage: "Luck is where opportunity meets preparation".

No movies of "Cell 13" but two TV adaptations, one back in the early 60's on Suspense Theater (I think it was called) and one in the 70's on a British series called "The Rivals of Sherlock Holmes".

I'm currently coordinating a LibriVox.org project based on the latter series, called "The Rivals of Sherlock Holmes, Vol. 1", where we're recording stories that appeared in the first season (except for "The Missing Witness Sensation" by Ernest Bramah, which is still under copyright in the U.S. and for which I've substituted "The Tilling Shaw Mystery").

Vol 2. (with "Cell 13") will be forthcoming. I've already gathered together all the e-texts, and we'll be recording all the English language stories adapted for that series. Two foreign-language stories, "Anonymous Letters" by Balduin Groller and "The Sensible Action of Lieutenant Holst" by Baron Palle Rosenkrantz, were only translated into English for the volume The Further Rivals of Sherlock Holmes, ed. Hugh Greene, and so can't be used.

The UK dramatisation made all the characters English, which is a bit of shame, but we do get to see Nicholas(The Brig)Courtney playing Hutchinson Hatch.

Fantastic post I very much enjoyed it, keep up the good work.

OMG! A Sequel to The Shining

jrosenhouse — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:57:56 +0000

OMG! A Sequel to The Shining

I'm pathetically excited about this:

The last we heard of the troubled and mystical Danny Torrance, he had just conquered the malicious Overlook Hotel, losing his father, Jack, along the way. Over thirty years later, his story will be continued via Stephen King's sequel to The Shining, titled Doctor Sleep.

I've been a big Stephen King fan ever since high school. The shine has come off a bit with his recent novels, but I still read them as quickly as King can publish them. The Shining is one of my all time favorites.

The sequel's plot? Young Danny is all grown up and uses his powers to help dying hospice patients. Apparently there are vampires too. Whatever. Don't really care.

jrosenhouse Wed, 09/28/2011 - 07:57

Tags

Literature

Maybe you should follow his lead.

Jason: "I'm trying to finish my BECB, but something seems to be missing."

Editor: "Needs more vampire."

I read each new Heinlein novel and short story until they eventually became nothing more than characters and plot lines from earlier works I'd already read.

And now, a sequel to the Shining. This may be where I draw the line. I've read all of King's fiction, too, and have gradually lowered my expectations to the point that it's not worth it any longer.

I'm reading "Full Dark, No Stars" and it seems up to his usual standards.

I worry about a sequel to The Shining; that's a pretty high bar he's set for himself. The first time I read it I had to sleep with the lights on for a week. Pity in some ways that Jack Nicholson's line has become the iconic image for the film, because I didn't think Kubrick captured the essence of the novel, let alone what he did to Wendy (Olive Oil? Really?)

Kubrick did to The Shining what Peter Jackson did to LOTR.

Typo, should be Oyl.

I also read "Full Dark, No Stars," and thought it was better than most of his new books (though it did leave me more depressed than usual), but it was enough to make me want to try the next one. Can't figure out how I should feel about the sequel thing. I actually heard someone mention this last week, and I rolled my eyes at the crazy rumors going around, but there we go. I oppose unplanned sequels in general, and I was never dying to know how the rest of Danny's life turned out, but the premise does seem weird enough to be a decent Stephen King novel.

I also thought Full Dark, No Stars was one of his best among his recent books. The “four novellas” format seems to work well for him, since I also really liked Different Seasons and Four Past Midnight. But I was disappointed with Under the Dome. As for this sequel, I've always thought The Shining could really accommodate one. I'd like to know what happened to Danny Torrance after he grew up. Hope it's good. In the meantime, he has another big one coming out in November.

Will Stephen King continue his long and dependable tradition of featuring evil Christians in his stories?

SK needs an editor with real teeth for his novels. They are all at least 1/3 too long.

Considering how exquisite are his short stories, it's puzzling why his novels are so long-winded.

@#8: Agreed. I like his writing for the most part, but it suffers from too many digressions, pointless flashbacks, irrelevant details of characters' backgrounds, etc. It's like his cocaine and alcohol addiction are jumping off the page at you.

King peaked with "The Stand" and nothing since has equalled it, though he had his moments until "It," where I stopped reading him. His very need to trade on the reputation of an early successful book is a dead give away that he's burned out.

fyreflye --

Heresy! It was one of my favorites.

Kubrick did to The Shining what Peter Jackson did to LOTR.

Kubrick did to The Shining what Peter Jackson did to LOTR.

Made a movie out of it?

Peter Jackson's LOTR adapted the books to the screen, whereas Kubricks' Shining is an original piece of work, merely inspired by King's book.

FYI, there is a King approved movie adaption of the Shining.

Fantastic post I very much enjoyed it, keep up the good work.