Every Day Is Darwin Day

Every day is Darwin day if you play the Ikea Monkey Game,

based on Darwin — the monkey who made global headlines during Christmas after he was captured wandering in a Toronto Ikea wearing a shearling coat,

produced by Barnabas Wornoff, a Seneca College animation professor, and a group of former Seneca students:

http://www.ikeamonkeyshirt.com/game.html

http://www.ikeamonkeyshirt.com/game.html

Toronto bylaws state the IKEA Monkey is an “exotic animal” and therefore should be put in monkey jail. Maybe it will get to go back with its mother at the end of January? For now let’s help him build an IKEA shelf for his new temporary home in monkey jail at Story Book Farm Sanctuary. Collect all the parts of the shelf without hitting people or cars. Good luck!

You can also play the game on newgrounds, a game website.

Wornoff and his team

are challenging everyone to try and beat the game, and if you manage to help Darwin build his BILLY shelf, then at the last screen after the credits your score comes up and you are invited to take a buddy shot with your cell phone and then email it to us at munke.sales@gmail.com. We’re posting all the buddy shots on our blog.

More Than a Beautiful Face

Lamarr

Hedy Lamarr (1913 – 2000) was considered “the most beautiful woman in Europe” and “the most beautiful woman in the world.”  However, Rita J. King , in the Linkedin article, “Five Things that the ‘Most Beautiful Woman in the World’ Taught Us About Innovation,” highlights Lamarr’s additional qualities:

Her real accomplishments as an inventor, however, are far more dazzling than “the most beautiful woman on the world” was on screen.

Without her, we might not have cell phones, defense satellites and wireless Internet. So what can we learn about innovation from Hedy Lamarr?

1) Take risks. Hedy fled her country and husband in 1937. “It was his game to keep me prisoner,” she said, “It had been my game to escape. He lost.” On the trip to the United States she landed a Hollywood contract. She also gave herself a new name, Lamarr, after the sea, La Mar.

2) Collaborate. Five years after her film debut, at a dinner party in Hollywood, she met an avant-garde composer and shared her idea to protect US radio-guided torpedoes from enemy interference. She left her number in red lipstick on his windshield so the discussion could continue. The pair patented the invention and presented it to the United States Government for a “Secret Communications System” to help defeat Hitler.

3) Create the Future. Today, the science in this patent serves as the basis for the technology used in cell phones, pagers, wireless Internet and defense satellites, to name a few devices.

4) Don’t rush. “The world isn’t getting any easier,” Hedy Lamarr once said. “With all these new inventions I believe that people are hurried more and pushed more… The hurried way is not the right way. You need time for everything, time to work, time to play, time to rest.”

5) Be Curious. “Hope and curiosity about the future seemed better than guarantees. That’s the way I was. The unknown was always so attractive to me, and still is.”

Hedy Lamarr was beautiful and smart; the five pieces of advice she left us make her an excellent role model.

Philosopher Phriday Answer (11 January 2013)

Here is the revelation of the identity of last week’s mystery philosopher:

Hypatia of Alexandria

Hypatia’s estimated date of birth was 370-350 CE;  in 415 CE, she was killed by a Christian mob, accused of meddling in the affairs of Church vs state – a conflict between the governor Orestes and the Bishop of Alexandria

She was an astronomer and philosopher, and teacher.  According to the Wikipedia article,

The contemporary Christian historiographer Socrates Scholasticus described her in Ecclesiastical History: There was a woman at Alexandria named Hypatia, daughter of the philosopher Theon, who made such attainments in literature and science, as to far surpass all the philosophers of her own time. Having succeeded to the school of Plato and Plotinus, she explained the principles of philosophy to her auditors, many of whom came from a distance to receive her instructions. On account of the self-possession and ease of manner which she had acquired in consequence of the cultivation of her mind, she not infrequently appeared in public in the presence of the magistrates. Neither did she feel abashed in going to an assembly of men. For all men on account of her extraordinary dignity and virtue admired her the more.

You can see a fictionalized account of Hypatia’s life in the recent movie Agora.  Though not strictly historically accurate, it’s well worth watching.

 

 

Jesus and Mo Wednesday

It’s early;  there are no comments under today’s comic on the Jesus and Mo site, so I’m free to interpret Mo’s message without outside influence.  “Goal” is not funny; it’s disturbing.  Mo suggests using social media, which we know is a successful way to spread information and connect with an large number of people, to start a movement that encourages a return to the Dark Ages  “that Golden Age” what Mo describes as “simpler times when justice and virtue ruled according to God’s law.” Today’s cartoon is not prophetic; this is already happening in West Africa where Islamist extremists, without the help of Twitter and Facebook, are creating “Mayhem In Mali

goal

goal

 

Brought to you by the power of God.

 

Shadows of Superstition

(Fair warning: this will spiral a bit, in getting where it’s going, and so I feel I should warn you of this, if you’re really interested in following the whole thing. But I think there are times for that.)

So Patrick Madden had a recent conversation with Eduardo Galeano, about, among other things, oddly enough, the Newtown school massacre, and the current government of Uruguay.

It’s a very humanist conversation, seems to me. Few answers, sure. But some very good questions. I hereby recommend it for reading.

… me, however, I’m going to take from it as jumping off point (somewhat artifically) one nice little observation in there:

… given certain large-scale conditions, a society will produce its garbage pickers or mass murderers.

This, I think is fair enough to say. Something that safe and general usually is, granted.

But, now, jumping (initially, apparently) sideways from that:
Continue reading

Reading the Religious Experts

It is usually painful to read the experts religious responses to the weekly Ottawa Citizen “Ask the Religious Experts” question. This week, however, I find myself agreeing with at least one of the religious panelists. Rabbi Reuven Bulka‘s response to “How can we explain a tragedy like the Newtown shootings?” is similar to my reaction to the question.

In truth, trying to [make sense out of these shootings] is futile, and possibly even insulting. . . . We are unfair to everyone by offering lame-brain excuses. We cannot explain the inexplicable. And we are not obligated to have explanations for everything. Some things make no sense, and this is one of them. . . . The plaintiff cry of “why” is not an intellectual question to which we need respond with often convoluted philosophy.

It is unfair and arrogant for the Ottawa Citizen to ask its religious experts to pontificate on this question.  Pontificate is the perfect word because Geoffrey Kerslake, a Catholic priest,  usually looks to the pope or the Catechism of the Catholic Church for support.  However, this week, Kerslake uses what Rabbi Bulka calls “convoluted philosophy” to explain the Newtown tragedy:

Sometimes people ask me “why did God cause this or that particular tragedy to happen?” There is really no good answer for human-caused tragedies like what happened in Newtown. We know that God does not cause these tragedies to occur, nor can He prevent them from happening without destroying what makes us a human being — our free will.

The certainty that humans have and can exercise free will is an inflexible doctrine of the Catholic Church and the contradiction in the corollary, the Church’s certainty of “the absolute rule of God over men’s wills by His omnipotence and omniscience,” is explained as a mystery. The idea that free will does not exist, and every human and physical action is a reaction to or an effect of the sum of all physical and human actions that came before goes against Kerslake’s blind faith.

Ray Innen Parchelo, a novice Tendai priest, tries to make a case for religion’s role in analyzing and explaining tragedy:

Religion has importance in such an analysis in that religious life participates in the broader project of social relations and value formation.

John Counsell, a discipleship pastor at Bethel Pentecostal Church in Ottawa, is new to the panel and is still working on his panel-voice. His observation,  “If this life is all there is, then the Newtown killings are stark evidence that the world is too often horribly cruel and brutal,” is cliched but accurate: the world is often horribly cruel and brutal. Counsell wants us to have faith in Christ:

Christ said: “In this world you will have trouble, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome this world” (John 16:33). Those words can seem like empty platitudes if the power of the risen Christ is nothing more than a distant theological concept or vague assumption. He also said He stands at our heart’s door desiring to come in, to take up residence, literally living in us (Revelation 3:20), so that “good cheer” in the midst of tragedy would be a reality.

Kevin Smith, a humanist, skeptic and freethinker, is more diplomatic than I am. He resists the temptation to tell the religious experts to “cut the crap.”  Smith uses his final paragraphs to answer Kerslake and other experts who use religion and God to explain the unexplainable:

They say He’s been banished from schools — He being the creator of the universe, the loving, omnipotent father possessed with a tendency toward occasional vengeance if he’s not worshipped every day. That is the sole reason for the murders, they repeat, as much to convince themselves as for others who must rationalize the irrational.

How cruel to the grieving families that these self-serving defenders of their faith dare make excuses for a God who doesn’t care, or who is not there. He is never anywhere.

Bravo Kevin Smith! Tell it like it is: there is no caring God. God is an invention used to bolster religious faith in all its forms and contradictions and is exploited, as Smith says,  to  “rationalize the irrational.”

 

 

Who are the “Nones”?

There’s an old joke which asks how the Canadian census is done. The answer: Take the American census and divide by ten. But for religious faith, the numbers are quite different – the proportion of Canadian non-believers is 20-30%, roughly twice the US rate. So when an article on the rise of non-believers in the US Congress came to my attention, I wondered about the corresponding Canadian statistics. I know of two “out” atheist MPs: Carolyn Bennett and Jinny Sims  – roughly 0.6%. As for the US, according to the article, Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) was “the first member of Congress to publicly describe her religion as none.”. However, Sinema has recently released a statement* saying that she “believes the terms non-theist, atheist or non-believer are not befitting of her life’s work or personal character.” (This comes as rather a disappointment for those who were hopeful that Sinema would assume the mantle of the recently defeated atheist Pete Stark.) Interestingly, the article goes on to point out that “10 other members of the 113th Congress (about 2%) do not specify a religious affiliation, up from six members (about 1%) of the previous Congress.”

So who are the nones? One of the first commenters on the article vehemently objects to the assumption that as a none he is assumed to be an atheist (accusing those who do so self-identify of engaging in “fundamentalist closed thinking”). Others talk about people who rarely even consider topics of theology or spirituality. Still others suggest that it would be best if everyone called themselves “none-of-your-damned-business-ists”.

Perhaps atheist groups should take a caveat from this and be cautious about artificially inflating our numbers by appropriating all the nones. But beyond that, for those who really are atheists, and choose simply to say they are non-believers, it would be informative and useful to find out why. Are they really “apatheists” who only give thought to the existence of gods when explicitly asked? (Lucky for them, if their daily experience allows them to avoid the question.) Are they afraid of repercussions from family, friends, co-workers? Do they think people who call themselves atheists are inherently rude, mean, strident, militant, fundamentalist? Is there any value in trying to determine ways to engage them and involve them in groups like CFI? Or is that too much like evangelism?

*H/T to Butterflies and Wheels

Alfred Russel Wallace 190th Birthday

Reprinted with Permission

“Wallace is one of the most important figures of nineteenth-century biology and in character among its most admirable.” E. O. Wilson
“..Wallace has to be one of the most interesting people in the history of science” Sherrie Lyons

Yesterday, January 8, 2013 marked Alfred Russel Wallace‘s 190th birthday. 2013 also marks the 100th anniversary of Wallace’s death.  Wallace was born fourteen years after Charles Darwin and died in 1913, thirty-one years after Darwin.  However, although Darwin’s name is more familiar to everyone who is culturally and/or scientifically literate, Darwin and Wallace are inextricably linked in the history of science:

In February of 1858 . . . Wallace . . . connected the ideas of Thomas Malthus on the limits to population growth to a mechanism that might ensure long-term organic change. This was the concept of the “survival of the fittest,” in which those individual organisms that are best adapted to their local surroundings are seen to have a better chance of surviving, and thus of differentially passing along their traits to progeny. . . . Wallace penned an essay on the subject . . . and sent it off to [Charles] Darwin. . . . [who] . . had been entertaining very similar ideas for going on twenty years, and now a threat to his priority on the subject loomed. He contacted [Charles] Lyell to plead for advice on how to meet what just about anyone would have to admit was a very awkward situation. Lyell and Joseph Hooker . . . decided to present Wallace’s essay, along with some unpublished fragments from Darwin’s writings on the subject, to the next meeting of the Linnean Society . . . on 1 July 1858 . . .

[T]he events of summer 1858 did ensure that the world wouldn’t have to wait any longer for its introduction to the concept of natural selection. Darwin had been working on a much larger tome on the subject . . .; Wallace’s bombshell had the immediate effect of forcing him to get together a more compact, readable, and, ultimately, probably more successful work. On the Origin of Species was published . . . in November of 1859. And, although Darwin would overshadow Wallace from that point on, Wallace’s role in the affair was well enough known to insiders, at least, to ensure his future entry into the highest ranks of scientific dialogue.

In acknowledgement of Wallace’s contribution to science and natural history, Natural History Museum curator George Beccaloni and a team of fellow Wallace enthusiasts have created “Wallace100 – celebrating Alfred Russel Wallace’s life and legacy.” The Alfred Russel Wallace Website explains,

Wallace100 is an informal international association of organisations with projects that are designed to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Wallace’s death in 2013. The main purpose of Wallace100 is to publicise the anniversary and the events which are being planned to commemorate it.

———————————————————————-

By coordinating our efforts and working together where possible, we will ensure that 2013 is the biggest and best celebration of Wallace’s life and work ever seen!

A shorter “Biography of Wallace” by George Beccaloni & Charles Smith and photos and samples of Wallace’s artwork are available on the The Alfred Russel Wallace Website.

WordPress theme: Kippis 1.15