Why No Posts on Paris?

I have not written about the events in Paris here.  I did tweet some, but no blogging.  Why?  Not sure what I have to say.  While I am appalled at the attacks, I am not surprised or even shocked as terrorism is not going away, as Europe has experienced similar attacks recently.  The scale is slightly bigger than other European attacks, but the choice of "soft targets" is not new.  These folks wanted to do maximum amount of carnage, which makes it appear more AQ-ish than ISIS, but I will let the experts sort this out.

Lots of quick reactions by everyone, mostly demonstrating the power of confirmation bias.  This event has not changed most people's policy prescriptions.  And, yes, me, too, as my focus has been on humility, the theme of 2015 at the Spew.  That whatever we do, we should not over-react, that our past responses have not been especially successful, so doing more may not produce more security. 

More attention, of course, to Paris than to Beirut, Baghdad or elsewhere.  Why?  For all kinds of reasons: racism, familiarity, identification (the west feels attacks on western places more directly than those elsewhere as we identify more with the victims), connections (victims include Americans, folks from other European countries, etc).  One can focus on the ethnocentrism dynamic, but that too is confirmation bias.  Events like these resonate for all kinds of reasons, and the media seem to be able to focus on one event at the time, so this has crowded out the other attacks, the coverage of the college protests, the bombing of the Russian plane, and everything else.

Anyhow, take everything everyone says with a giant grain of salt... as my students do:

Student art from Poli 244, circle 2008

Read More

Threat Countdown: Right Wing Terrorism

Didn't Colbert have a bit about counting down the threats?  Well, the Canadian security folks, CSIS, have counted the threats and found that:

“Lone wolf” attacks more often come from white supremacists and extreme right-wing ideologies than from Islamic radicalism, internal CSIS documents say.

Citing recent academic research, the unclassified documents note extreme right-wing and white supremacist ideology has been the “main ideological source” for 17 per cent of so-called lone wolf attacks worldwide.

Islamic extremism accounted for 15 per cent of such attacks, the document noted, while left-wing extremism and “black power” groups followed with 13 per cent. Anti-abortion activism (8 per cent) and nationalism/separatism (7 per cent) rounded out the list, while in 40 per cent of cases there was no clear ideological motivation.

Of course, the non-lone wolf variety is probably tied to Islamist groups, like Al Qaeda.  Still, we panic so much at Islamist terrorism that we forget that the white supremacists/right wing types are as or more violent.  Indeed, what about Oklahoma City?  What about the spate of attacks in the US tied to white supremacists?

We have seen more of this with a black President and with whites declining relative to other ethnic groups in terms of relative size.  We will see more of this.  I remember that a US intel estimate with similar kinds of findings got squashed a few years ago, so it is nice to have a reminder of this basic reality.   Indeed, Homeland Security had a report last month that didn't get too much play on "right wing sovereign citizens" and the violence they are generating.

All this should serve as a reminder that terrorism is a tactic and not a movement.  There are terrorists in all kinds of movements, and that North America has as much to fear from the right as from anywhere else.

Read More

Daesh, not ISIS/ISIL/IS

Thanks to a persuasive former student, I am going to join others in referring to the group claiming to be the Caliphate as Daesh and not the Islamic State, ISIS or ISIL. 

Why?  First, it keeps practice consistent--we don't call Hamas the Islamic Resistance because we use their acronym in Arabic  Daesh apparently is the acronym if we use the Arabic name. 

Second, it is insulting to them since daesh has other meanings:

Daesh sounds similar to the Arabic words Daes ("one who crushes something underfoot") and Dahes ("one who sows discord")

Third, I feel bad for all of the girls named ISIS and all of the Institutes with this acronym.

But mostly, we should use it because it pisses off those who belong to Daesh. 

Read More

Resiliency FTW

I am chock full of cheer today, as I see pics tweet by on my twitter feed and on my facebook page of folks participating in the Boston Marathon.  The efforts by two terrorists to sow fear have apparently failed.  Yes, they caused grievous harm, including killing three people and injuring far more.  But if they are/were self-styled terrorists, their goal was to more than maim and kill but to create a reaction, to create fear.

Instead, what we see today, albeit with amped up security presence, are people embracing the special day in Boston and celebrating their ability to run, to ride, to walk, to observe the event.  The usual mantra is "we have to do x or the terrorists will win."  Well, here, we see the terrorists losing.  Why?  Because Bostonians and Americans more generally are resilient.  More than folks have generally thought.  This is important because anti-/counter-terrorism efforts can never been 100% as much as we would like.  Stuff is going to happen.  That we can overcome it and move on is key.

Today, we are getting a very visible illustration of this resiliency that is so important.  So, we should not only enjoy the reality that the Tsarnaevs failed (yes, we can call them losers), but also take much pride in knowing that such nihilists can be overcome by people just enjoying what they do.

From RunnersWorld.com

Read More

China spots possible plane crash debris in Indian Ocean

China has spotted in the southern Indian Ocean possible debris from the Malaysia Airlines jet that disappeared two weeks ago.

The new potential sighting was dramatically announced by Malaysia's
acting transport minister, Hishammuddin Hussein, after he was handed a
note with details during a news conference in Kuala Lumpur, scooping the
official announcement from China.

"Chinese ships have

Read More

Are they behind the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines Flight 370

In the middle of the nuclear 'negotiations,' could Hassan Rohani and Ayatollah Ali Khameni be behind the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 on Friday night? It's beginning to look like that might be the case.




Malaysian authorities have given US investigators biometric details on two passengers who used stolen passports to travel on a Malaysia Airlines flight that disappeared on

Read More

Under-reacting vs. Over-reacting

We are pretty familiar with the US efforts to deal with terrorism and that much security theater be over-reacting to the threat.  Yesterday, a person finally got a court decision to challenge the no-fly list as there might just be an absence of due process.  

Well, Canada seems to be under-reacting.  A guy is found with a pipe bomb as he tries to go through security at an airport.  The CATSA people take away the bomb and then let him board the plane and then don't call the police four days.  Um, oy!

I ask a simple question--isn't there some place in the middle between these two extremes that might make sense?

Read More

We may be tired of the war on terror, but the terrorists and their supporters aren't

Walter Russell Meade tries to connect the dots between several events that the Obama administration would like us to believe are not connected. Here's his conclusion.

But sometimes truth needs to be told. We are killing people in acts
of war across Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa and expect to
kill quite a few more. We are fighting a battle first to contain and
then to defeat a

Read More

Individuals and Lone Wolves

I have been thinking a lot lately about something that political science generally does poorly--individuals. So, I am poorly equipped and pretty frustrated.  But events every day teach us that governments can influence groups, but not everyone.  That there are individuals out there, for good and bad, that have an outsized influence.  Three examples of very different kinds today:

• Yesterday, I blogged about Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 Norwegians last year, and about the effort to learn from the experience.
• Last night, a movie promoted by Terry Jones, the minister of intolerance and hate, led to violence in Egypt and Libya including the deaths of the US Ambassador to Libya and three others.  Just awful.  I joked online that Jones should go and meet this anti-fans.  Yes, we have freedom of speech, but with freedom comes responsibility. I cannot think right now of someone using the freedom of speech more irresponsibly than this one guy.
• President Karzi of Afghanistan is also being irresponsible this morning, highlighting the movie and not condemning the violence.

Governments and societies can compel, persuade, and influence people to engage in responsible behavior, but what can we do about individuals who do not mind doing damage to others?  I have no solutions and few theories.  I raised a few yesterday at CSIS and was quickly countered by those who know what they are doing.  For instance, I pondered raising tarrifs on the chemicals used to make bombs.  Sure, there are alternative uses, but could we raise taxes on imports of small quantities of the stuff (whatever it is) and waivers for established companies?  Breivik was running out of money--as a lone wolf, he had no apparent financial support.  Could we have bankrupted him ahead of time by making the various components of his plans more expensive?  Can we come up with import schemes so that dual-use goods are too expensive for random individuals?

A second was more of wishful thinking than anything else.  Perhaps we do not need to worry so much about how creative and ingenius lone wolves can be.  It seemed to me that they are mostly not that creative--Breviek not only plagiarized in his manifesto but clearly borrowed from the AQ's playbook.  Let's worry less about exotic attacks and focus on the basic's--improved explosive devices and shooting sprees.  If we can figure out ways to deal with these, then we can focus on the stranger, higher tech stuff (improvised drones or what not). 

Anyhow, I have more questions than answers.  Any suggestions?

Read More

Blogburst against #BrettKimberlin and terrorism

Friday is the day that has been set for a blogburst in support of my friend Robert (Stacy) McCain, who has been in hiding since the beginning of this week, when he was threatened by convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin (pictured above).Who is Brett Kimberlin? Here's an introduction.Let's go to the videotape.There's a lot more on Kimberlin - and his ties to the Left and possible ties to the Obama

Read More

Everything is Relative Even The Terrorists

The past week has seen a bunch of pieces arguing that Al Qaeda is stronger now than ever before or weaker now than ever before.  As someone who does not study AQ at all or terrorism much, I feel I am especially qualified to comment.  This is why twitter is great--no need for citations.

My first take on this debate is that the folks arguing that AQ is stronger confuse opportunity with strength.  Yes, there are all kinds of events/processes/dynamics that are opening the window for AQ--more opportunity:

• 9/11 fatigue--countries and populations are tired of being alert and spending heaps of resources and energy on fighting terrorism.  Much of this is actually quite appropriate as the over-reactions have probably been less than helpful.
• Arab Spring and other dynamics have reduced state capacity to fight terrorism.  Feeble democracies may not be energetic or competent when it comes to chasing terrorism, when compared to the autocracies that they replaced.  And autocracies focused on political opposition may take their eyes off of the terrorism effort.  Of course, weak democracies may cause fewer folks to seek extremist solutions like joining terrorist groups that promise to kill their new adherents via suicide terrorism.
• The fiscal crises and Great Recession mean that the advanced democracies have less money to dedicate to the CT battle.  On the other hand, with fiscal restraints, perhaps less money will be wasted?  Sorry, forget my foolish optimism.

Second, the question is of AQ now vs when?  I picked 1998 as semi-random date for AQ's peak:

1.  Pre-9/11 AQ had a very useful base in Afghanistan and had cells in Germany and elsewhere that were quite useful, as we realized during the 9/11 investigation.
2.  Somalia now vs Somalia 1998?  Pretty much the same in terms of haven for terrorists, with more US drones/SOF attacks now.
3. Antagonized Muslim world for past ten years with realization that AQ kills more Muslims than anyone else.
4. Democratic alternative seems to work, at least thus far in North Africa.
5. Bin Laden is still dead as are most folks who have been appointed #3 in AQ. Lots of lost principals and agents, which means less preferred folks are now in key spots.  If they had been preferred, many of them would have had top spots before.  This does not bode well for command and control.
6. a decade of antagonizing Muslim world, death of leader and 47 #3's, more unity in anti-AQ fight, lost base in A-stan hurts 1/2 

It may be that the West is weaker, but that does not mean that AQ is stronger now than before.  It just means that the West may respond poorly to the next attack. 

Read More

Iran and Strange Assassination Plots

A student asked me to blog about the latest news about Iran and the plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US.  I simply have no clue about it.  I do think Foreignpolicy.com has had a few posts that are most illuminating including Worst Bomb Plot Ever;  Excellent stuff here.

I do have a few questions.  Folks tend to think the guy at the center of the plot is hard to buy as a covert operative. "Manssor Arbabsiar, the Iranian expatriate at the center of the plot, bears no resemblance to a covert operative.(Worst Bomb Plot)" Um, isn't that what a covert operative is supposed to appear to be?

Read More

It's Not Over Until It's Over

Lots of temptation to rush to judgment.  Especially these days when folks want to declare Al Qaeda losers in the round of middle east political transitions.  There is something to this as the events have shown:

1. Political change is possible without extremist violence.
2. The people of the region care more about jobs and liberty than about religion, especially the extremely retrogressive band that AQ seeks to sell.
3. The US is not propping these governments up ... if the people push hard enough.

But in each case, the show is not over, the game has not ended, the metaphors will continue!  That is, we have not reached a stable outcome in any of these places yet.  Tunisia and Egypt have not suddenly become Denmark, and the transitions will be bumpy and quite reversible.  So, AQ may have lost in the short (and, yes, they have lost in the short-term big time), but they are in it for the long haul.

Read More

Is the Anti-Terrorism Glass Half-Full or Half-Empty?

The NYT has two articles on its front webpage, one highlighting the successful arrest of Faisal Shahzad and the other focused on how he almost got away.  Sort of. Perhaps the NYT is providing both views to allow one to read the story that confirms one's own attitudes.

The events do provide some support for the stupid terrorist argument--that the US has not suffered as much terrorism as it could have because some of these guys are not too bright.  What did Shahzad do wrong?  Well, not to provide advice to terrorists, but since AQ is a learning organization, I am sure these mistakes will be identified (and perhaps repeated anyway):

• He left his keys in the vehicle.  Including one that fit into his front door at home.
• There is more than one VIN number on a vehicle so taking the most obvious one is not going to cut it.
• While this was a break in the case, it was an entirely predictable one (that is, identifying the vehicle) as the FBI was able to identify the rental trucks that were destroyed in Oklahoma City and the first World Trade Center attack.
• Hopping onto a flight to Dubai is not a very subtle way to sneak out of the country.
• Even if the plane had taken off with him, there would was plenty of time to make the plane land back in NY, to land somewhere along the way, or arrest the guy in Dubai.  So, even him getting on the plane just made him easier to catch (as Jack, Kate, and the others found out last night).
•  The bomb was poorly designed.
•  The internet seems to be a place where records do not disappear.  
• The car sale
• Just like the guys who had no interest in landing jet planes, this guy did not care about whether the vehicle would hold up for the long run.  Engine?  Who cares?

The only surprise to me is that the FBI lost him after finding him.  Given what we all see on TV and the movies, I am surprised that they could not and did not place a tracking device on the car and/or use multiple vehicles to tail him.  Where are Spenser and Hawk when you need them?

We should not over- or under-estimate the work of the police and Feds at this point.  The trail was an easy one to follow, but they followed it quickly and efficiently, with the exception of their failure to tail the suspect.

Read More

More on Conspiracy Theory

I got pretty riled up yesterday during my interview about the 9/11 liars who were appearing at a local university.  And then the guy installing my new HD satellite dish and video recorder (oh, the video now pops with color)* asked me about the interview since it took place while he was doing his work.  He apparently believed in the conspiracy theories, but not wholeheartedly.  When I raised the issue of why would an American president kill thousands of American civilians, he brought up the issue of money.

I have not and will not read the conspiracy theories as I have plenty of real work to do, but I am puzzled by this notion of a profit motive.  Are they suggesting that 9/11 happened because Bush/Cheney/whoever had stocks that they were short-selling? Because expanding military spending would enrich them?  Because the war in Iraq was for oil?  I am not sure how that connection works, but I suggested something that is often overlooked: that anyone who kills thousands of Americans is likely to face a death sentence if caught.  So why would rich folks who can enrich themselves in a number of ways seek the one way that could lead to their own deaths?  Where is the logic in that?  The satellite guy was not a committed believer to conspiracy theory, so he found some merit in what I had to say.  But there is a strong undercurrent of folks up here in Quebec who, because of their suspicions about the Bush Administration or perhaps any American leader, buy into this conspiracy crap. 

The folks speaking last night apparently were picking on the details of the collapse of one of the other buildings that was part of the World Trade Tower complex.  So, the claim, I think, is that US allowed the attack to occur and then exaggerated its effects.  Huh?  I guess that is like those folks who say that FDR allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor but moved the carriers out because he somehow understood the future of naval warfare better than the Navy.  Not sure why a US conspiracy would have to blow up additional buildings or even attack the Pentagon.  The Towers were sufficient for angering the American people (most people do not even think of the Pentagon attacks that much).  But there I go, applying logic.  Sorry. 

It is sad that so many people I have encountered in Quebec fall for this crap.  Not a majority but not a handful either.  People are willing to give 9/11 deniers some credence.  But then again, what percentage of Americans still doubt that Obama was born in Kenya Hawaii?




* I am kind of surprised that Canada does not require people to get HDTV since hockey looks fantastic with it.

Read More

Ask the Reader: Reacting to Terrorism

Marc Lynch tweeted a key question:  "So far much less collective freakout over Times Square failed bombing better than over X-Mas failed bombing -- learning?"

The question would then be who is learning what? 

• Are media outlets learning that over-playing a terrorist incident is a bad idea?  That it does not help in ratings?  Or are they merely distracted by the oil spill?
• Are politicians learning not to play politics with these things?  Perhaps.  Did anyone really win or lose after the Christmas incident?  Obama certainly spoke out faster, perhaps pre-empting any criticism.  
• Is the public learning?  Are we getting inured to these events?  

I really have no clue.  I do think it is too early to tell about a great many things--not just who is responsible but the political dynamics within the US.  Again, attention is now focused on the Gulf, which is probably appropriate because visible government efforts are needed here.  In NYC, we need and will get a serious investigation.  The next big moment will be when the government leaks or releases its identification of suspects--foreign or domestic? AQ inspired or extreme right wing?


So, readers, why are we not freaking out about this event, given how many of us have wandered through Times Square?
 

Read More

Calling A Rose By Any Other Name [UPDATED]

"A potential terrorist attack?"  That is what the car bomb scare last night in NYC is being called.  To be clear, it was a failed act of terrorism, no matter who was responsible UNLESS it was aimed to kill a particular individual or group at that location for the sheer sake of killing those people.  Whoever set the car bomb was almost surely trying to kill lots of random people and send a broader message of fear to NY and beyond.  Just like flying a plane into an IRS office in Austin, blowing up a federal building in Oklahoma, etc.  It does not matter whether you are white or not, Christian, Jewish or Muslim or none of the above.

It is too soon to tell what motivated this, although the bomb was poorly designed, suggesting poorly trained individuals.  What does this event mean?  Again, too soon to tell, but I am surprised it has not happened before.  The only thing that I can predict is that the Republicans will blame Obama for the event.

One other thing--it does point out that cities that get rid of their street vendors do so at some peril.  These guys provide an additional set of eyes on the street.

[UPDATED]  Good, clear discussion by someone, Steven Coll, who knows more about this stuff than I.

The description of the Dr. Seuss-inspired contraption in the back of the S.U.V. offered by the police suggests someone who tried to go to school on the Internet but didn’t have the patience to complete too many classes.

Coll goes on with some sensible recommendations:

There will be more of this sort of low-level terrorism in the United States in the years ahead, not only from self-styled jihadis but possibly also from the extreme right. Domestic terrorism constitutes a persistent and serious threat, but not a strategic or existential one. The country’s vulnerability arises not so much from the damage terrorists will cause but from American society’s self-defeating inability to see such violence in perspective and to find leadership and language to define national resilience

I disagree a bit with Coll's take on the reaction to the Chrismas attack.  I think over-reaction is perhaps a greater danger than under-reacting.  The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize.  If you do not over-react, you win the battle, if not the war.  If this means sometimes underplaying the reaction, then so be it. But this takes strength and a long view.  Much easier to do too much than too little.

Read More

Evolution and Religion: Is Religion Adaptive?

ANNOUNCEMENT: Seminar in History of Biology

AUTHOR: Allen MacNeill

COMMENTARY: Allen MacNeill

First the announcement, followed by a brief commentary:

I am very excited to announce the following course, to be offered this summer in the six-week summer session at Cornell University:

COURSE LISTING: BioEE 467/B&Soc 447/Hist 415/S&TS 447 Seminar in History of Biology

SEMESTER: Cornell Six-Week Summer Session, 06/26/07 to 08/02/07

COURSE TITLE: Evolution and Religion: Is Religion Adaptive?

COURSE INSTRUCTOR: Allen MacNeill, Senior Lecturer in Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University

COURSE DESCRIPTION: This seminar addresses, in historical perspective, controversies about the cultural, philosophical, and scientific implications of evolutionary biology. Discussions focus upon questions about gods, free will, foundations for ethics, meaning in life, and life after death. Readings range from Charles Darwin to the present (see reading list, below).

In 1871, Charles Darwin wrote in The Descent of Man that “…a belief in all-pervading spiritual entities seems to be universal.” A century later, Donald Brown, in his encyclopedic analysis of human universals, noted the same thing: that the capacity for religion is a universal trait, found in all human cultures. However, there is considerable individual variation in this capacity, ranging from people whose entire lives revolve around their religious beliefs to those who entirely lack them.

To an evolutionary biologist, such pan-specificity combined with continuous variation strongly suggests that one is dealing with an evolutionary adaptation. And indeed, in the past few years the publication of hypotheses for the evolution of the capacity for religion has become an explosive growth industry and a hot topic of debate. In this seminar course, we will take up this debate by considering three alternative hypotheses: that the capacity for religion is (1) an evolutionary adaptation, (2) a side-effect of an evolutionary adaptation, or (3) a “mind virus” with no direct evolutionary implications. We will read from some of the leading authors on the subject, including Scott Atran, Pascal Boyer, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Andrew Newberg, and David Sloan Wilson. Our intent will be to sort out the various issues at play, and to come to clarity on how those issues can be integrated into the perspective of the natural sciences as a whole.

In addition to in-class discussions, course participants will have the opportunity to participate in online debates and discussions via the instructor's weblog. Students registered for the course will also have an opportunity to present their original research paper(s) to the class and to the general public via publication on the course weblog and via THE EVOLUTION LIST.

INTENDED AUDIENCE: This course is intended primarily for students in biology, history, philosophy, and science & technology studies. The approach will be interdisciplinary, and the format will consist of in-depth readings across the disciplines and discussion of the issues raised by such readings.

PREREQUISITES: None, although a knowledge of comparative anthropology, evolutionary psychology, and general evolutionary theory would be helpful.

DAYS, TIMES, & PLACES: The course will meet on Tuesday and Thursday evenings from 6:00 to 9:00 PM in Mudd Hall, Room 409 (The Whittaker Seminar Room), beginning on Tuesday 26 June 2007 and ending on Thursday 2 August 2007. We will also have an end-of-course picnic at a location TBA.

CREDIT & GRADES: The course will be offered for 4 hours of credit, regardless of which course listing students choose to register for. Unless otherwise noted, course credit in BioEE 467/B&Soc 447 can be used to fulfill biology/science distribution requirements and Hist 415/S&TS 447 can be used to fulfill humanities distribution requirements (check with your college registrar's office for more information). Letter grades for this course will be based on the quality of written work on original research papers written by students, plus participation in class discussion.

COURSE ENROLLMENT & REGISTRATION: All participants must be registered in the Cornell Six-Week Summer Session to attend class meetings and receive credit for the course (click here for for more information and to enroll for this course). Registration will be limited to the first 18 students who enroll for credit.

REQUIRED TEXTS (all texts will be available at The Cornell Store):

Atran, Scott (2004) In Gods we trust: The evolutionary landscape of religion. Oxford University Press, paperback, 388 pages, ISBN #0195178033

Boyer, Pascal (2002) Religion explained: The evolutionary origins of religion. Vintage Books, paperback, 448 pages, ISBN #0099282763

Dawkins, Richard (2006) The God delusion. Houghton Mifflin, hardcover, 416 pages, ISBN #0618680004.

Dennett, Daniel (2007) Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon. Penguin Books, paperback, 464 pages, ISBN #0143038338

Newberg, Andrew & D'Aquili, Eugene (2001) Why god won't go away: Brain science and the biology of belief. Ballantine Books, paperback, 240 pages, ISBN #034544034X

Wilson, David Sloan (2003) Darwin's cathedral: Evolution, religion, and the nature of society. University of Chicago Press, paperback, 268 pages, ISBN #0226901351

OPTIONAL TEXTS (all texts will be available at The Cornell Store):

Darwin, Charles (E. O. Wilson, ed.) (2006) From So Simple a Beginning: Darwin's Four Great Books. W. W. Norton, hardcover, 1,706 pages, ISBN #0393061345

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Irenaus & Salter, Frank (1998) Indoctrinability, ideology, and warfare: Evolutionary perspectives. Berghahn Books, hardcover, 490 pages, ISBN #1571819231

Fitzduff, Marie & Stout, Chris (2006) The psychology of resolving global conflicts: From war to peace: Volume 1: Nature vs nurture. Praeger Security International, hardcover, 354 pages, ISBN #0275982084

Guthrie, Stewart (1995) Faces in the clouds: A new theory of religion. Oxford University Press, paperback, 336 pages, ISBN #0195098919

Hamer, Dean (2005) The God gene: How faith is hardwired into our genes. Anchor, 256 pages, ISBN #0385720319

Newberg, A. & Waldman, M. (2006) Why we believe what we believe: Uncovering our biological need for meaning, spirituality, and truth. Free Press, hardcover, 336 pages, ISBN # 0743274970

Persinger, Michael (1987) Neuropsychological bases of god beliefs. Praeger Publishers, 175 pages, ISBN #0275926486

Wolpert, Lewis (2006) Six impossible things before breakfast: The evolutionary origins of belief. W. W. Norton, 243 pages, ISBN #0393064492

COMMENTARY:

I realize that putting myself in between such formidable opponents is perhaps asking for trouble...but I couldn't possibly get into any more trouble than I did last summer, could I? Once again, we shall rush in where angels fear to tread, and consider a very topical topic. As was the case last year, I invite anyone with an interest in the question posed as the title of this blog to consider taking this course, or at least sitting in on our discussion online. We will have an online course blog, where any and all comments, criticisms, suggestions, and other trivia will be roasted and toasted...so long as they are civil. As for accusations that I'm biased, let me say upfront that I (like almost everyone else) have an opinion on the question: I believe (based on my research into this question) that the answer is "Yes" and that the specific context within which the capacity for religious experience has evolved is warfare...but we'll talk all about that this summer.

We may also talk about whether or not God (or gods, or whatever) exist, but that will not be the primary focus of the course, nor will I allow it to become the primary focus of our discussions. This course isn't about the existence or non-existence of God (or Darwin or me). It's about whether or not the ability to believe in things like God (or gods, or whatever) has adaptive consequences. It's a fascinating topic and I hope that enough people will sign up for the course with opposing viewpoints on this subject to make for as interesting a summer seminar as last year's was.

So, watch this space; when the course blog goes up, I will announce it here and provide links to all and sundry. And remember:

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." – Voltaire

--Allen

Read More