Interesting Stuff Thread

robindch

Back on the Galapagos Islands, biologists catch nature with its trousers down - having been able to track the development of an entirely new species from a single instance of hybrid breeding back in 1981.

Take that, creationists!

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42103058

recedite

robindch wrote: »

having been able to track the development of an entirely new species from a single instance of hybrid breeding back in 1981.

I'd be a bit sceptical about that. For one thing there has always been a lot of variation in the finches there, which is why Darwin found them interesting. I don't see anything new here.
Also, 65 miles is not a long way for a bird with a tailwind.
Also, if these birds are incapable of mating with the locals, why was the original male migrant not so constrained?
Also, they have changed the goalposts regarding the definition of a species.
IMO these are all subspecies, or races.

Hotblack Desiato

How f**ked up is this?

I won't link to the article as that'd just be making it worse, but it was on the Irish Times site today.

After thanking the jury for their service, Judge Karen O’Connor lifted reporting restrictions that prevented the media from naming Mr ****** during the trial.

This man could not be named in the media while the charges of sexual assault against him stood, now that he has been acquitted of these charges it's perfecly OK to name him and associate him for years to come with allegations of sexual assault.

The system is seriously f**ked up. We wouldn't countenance naming his accuser, yet he is named and shamed in relation to accusations he was found innocent of. It's not justice that's for sure.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

National Geographic sells itself. To climate-change deniers, Rupert Murdoch and the general Fox News hivemind.

National Geographic runs an article on "a group of Young Marines being taught to embody a patriotic love of God and country".

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/proof/2017/12/young-marines-blesener/

Sarah Blesener, Photographer wrote:

Young Marines is an example of mixing patriotism and militarism, which goes hand in hand with a lot of American culture. For many of the kids, their participation is completely divorced from politics. It’s about camaraderie and providing an important stepping stone for their future. [...] At a time when everything feels so divided, it is important to listen to other people and have insight into their worlds as fellow Americans [...] When it comes to young people I want to show this is complicated and nuanced. It is also interesting to look at how these ideals are being developed. ‘Make America Great’ is not a new concept.

recedite

As the author says, "its not a new concept".
Whats new is the political correctness of being critical of it.
Which the author and the photographer are tapping into, for all it is worth.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

As the author says, "its not a new concept".
Whats new is the political correctness of being critical of it.
Which the author and the photographer are tapping into, for all it is worth.

Not getting where the author is being critical of it. Doesn't seem too different from the boy scouts with all of its attendant controversy.

recedite

As it says in the text

While Blesener has approached her project with a critical eye

You can't look at those photos without getting a creepy feeling that something is wrong. These are not kids or cadets, they are mutant robots trained to kill in the name of Donald Trump.

spacecoyote

http://bgr.com/2017/12/14/oldest-shark-greenland-512-years-old/

This shark could give ol Methuselah a run for his money

recedite

they’ve determined that the creature is approximately 272 to 512 years old.

That is quite vague. It must be a female.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

That is quite vague. It must be a female.

And doesn't reach sexual maturity until over a hundred years old, that is one seriously long puberty

robindch

Unexpectedly, and only by a margin of one vote, Indonesia's Supreme Court does not ban sex outside of marriage.

http://www.france24.com/en/20171214-indonesia-constitutional-court-declines-ban-extramarital-sex

oscarBravo

robindch wrote: »

Unexpectedly, and only by a margin of one vote, Indonesia's Supreme Court does not ban sex outside of marriage.

It's a sad reflection on where the United States is headed that I initially read that as "Indiana" and was only mildly surprised.

Hotblack Desiato

Believe it or not, anti-'sodomy' laws were still in place in 14 US states until 2003, until the Supreme Court struck the laws down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

NAGDEFI

Episode 1 of a 3 part BBC series on Atheism available on youtube, overview and narration by Jonathan Miller, playwright and trained medic.

I viewed it 5 years ago. Excellent viewing for atheist, agnostic or religious. I'm new here so preview mightn't pop up.

Hotblack Desiato

Yep watched that a couple of years ago, it's very good.

Also available online is a series of extended interviews with the guests from this programme - these were too long to be broadcast but well done to the BBC for making them available online.

pauldla

The Year of the Dog is upon us. Happy lunar new year to all, 新年快乐！

robindch

Following Republican gerrymandering in Wisconsin, the problem of how to avoid it is once again in the headlines.

Here's one interesting suggestion for how to cut up districts "fairly" amongst two parties:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/how-the-i-cut-you-choose-method-of-redistricting-could-fix-a-broken-system.html

robindch

In January, a Georgetown university department published the results of research into why kids who are brought up as catholic abandon the religion.

https://www.smp.org/product/5926/Going-Going-Gone/
https://www.lasallian.info/2018/01/going-going-gone-saint-marys-press-releases-study-on-disaffiliation/
http://www.startribune.com/study-shows-why-young-catholics-leave-the-church/475709783/

smp.org wrote:

The study reveals that disaffiliation from the Church is largely a thoughtful, conscious, intentional choice made by young people in a secularized society where faith and religious practice are seen as one option among many. It’s a process that unfolds over time. Many disaffiliated youth and young adults report feeling “free” and “relieved” when they decide to no longer identify as Catholic. Family dynamics frequently play a role in disaffiliation. Still others who disaffiliate perceive that they can be happy and live good, moral lives without the burden or baggage of religious affiliation.

lasallian.info wrote:

The report reveals that disaffiliation is a process that happens over time, typically prompted by a series of events or unresolved questions. Of those surveyed, 35 percent identified as having no religious affiliation, nine percent said they are some other non-Protestant Christian affiliation, 14 percent identified as an atheist or agnostic, nine percent identified as Protestant, and fewer than one in ten of the remaining responded with some other religious affiliation. When asked at what age they no longer identified themselves as Catholic, 74 percent of the sample said between the ages of 10 and 20, with the median age being 13 years old.

startribune.com wrote:

They stopped believing in God. They saw a disconnect between what Catholics say and what they do. They disagreed with the church’s stance on social issues such as homosexuality and birth control.

pauldla

Neil Carter over on Patheos has an assessment of Billy Graham.

Billy Graham Was Not A Great Man

smacl

Rather strong stuff from Mary McAleese here. She pretty much nails it in what is IMHO quite a brave move for someone religiously inclined as herself.

recedite

People over in the Vatican must be wondering why she isn't officially a protestant, if she is protesting so much against church policy.
To which the simple answer is; she's from N. Ireland and you can't change your religion up there, any more than the colour of your skin.
Hence like many others she is stuck in the strange existence of the "outspoken disloyal catholic but definitely not a protestant".:)

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

People over in the Vatican must be wondering why she isn't officially a protestant, if she is protesting so much against church policy.
To which the simple answer is; she's from N. Ireland and you can't change your religion up there, any more than the colour of your skin.
Hence like many others she is stuck in the strange existence of the "outspoken disloyal catholic but definitely not a protestant".:)

Nobody in the Vatican is wondering this. One of the distinctions between Catholicism and Protestantism is the emphasis Catholics put on communion being embodied in structured relationships, and on those relationships being maintained in the face of challenges. "If she disagrees, why doesn't she leave?" is very much a Protestant reaction to observing disagreement; Catholics will readily understand why she wouldn't leave. The Catholic reaction to disagreement is to try to use the relationship to influence the views of those you disagree with. And of course in the Vatican they are mostly Catholics.

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

Rather strong stuff from Mary McAleese here. She pretty much nails it in what is IMHO quite a brave move for someone religiously inclined as herself.

For someone as deeply mentally embedded in the cult as she is, a far braver move would be to walk away entirely.

With regard to Peregrinus's post above: I was brought up as a catholic and was quite embedded in it in daily life throughout my childhood and adolescence (despite, to the best of my recollection, never actually believing...) I can't understand why she doesn't leave. And in the Vatican, no influence is possible.

Hotblack Desiato

pauldla wrote: »

Neil Carter over on Patheos has an assessment of Billy Graham.

Hope he died roarin'.

He was an intelligent man, he must have been well aware of the utter futility* of his life's work but of course carried on nonetheless.

* I define futility on his own terms, i.e. converts to xtianity, it is well documented that only a tiny percentage of attenders of these meetings 'converted' and the 'conversion' rarely lasts beyond a few years at best.

Billy Graham Was Not a Great Man

Americans respect quantification, and Graham was a marvel of quantities. He spoke…to more people directly — about 215 million — than any person in history.

That’s an astounding figure, to be sure. Except follow-up studies revealed that the percentages of people who would make actual “professions of faith” as a result of his crusades were always in the single digits, and further interviews with Graham intimated that their own research showed that an overwhelming majority of those people had turned away from their newfound faith within a matter of a few years. So upon further analysis, mass evangelism may not have ultimately been the most effective or consequential thing that Billy Graham did in his lifetime.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

For someone as deeply mentally embedded in the cult as she is, a far braver move would be to walk away entirely.

Not so sure. Mary McAleese stops going to church isn't quite the same headline. Joking aside, making an effort to change an organisation that you are part of yet believe has deeply toxic elements can be a tougher call than walking away, as can be seen in the Maurice McCabe case. I would imagine there are many Irish Catholics who find the hierarchy offensive for so many reasons yet still wish to remain Catholic. While I'm no fan of the Catholic church myself, I reckon McAleese has done them a favour here though I doubt they'll see it that way.

With regard to Peregrinus's post above: I was brought up as a catholic and was quite embedded in it in daily life throughout my childhood and adolescence (despite, to the best of my recollection, never actually believing...) I can't understand why she doesn't leave. And in the Vatican, no influence is possible.

Didn't have a religious upbringing, but I'd guess you could broadly divide those who did into two groups. Those who believe in their God and those who don't. The former will be more likely to want to change their church where the latter are more likely to abandon it.

smacl

The actual speech here, starts about 10 minutes in and IMHO quite entertaining.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oFn3gWPrd8

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

One of the distinctions between Catholicism and Protestantism is the emphasis Catholics put on communion being embodied in structured relationships, and on those relationships being maintained in the face of challenges.

I have no idea what that means.
Do you mean the power of mumbo jumbo?
Maybe that's why I am an atheist;, I never had much tolerance for swallowing accepted doctrine when it smelled strongly of BS.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

I have no idea what that means.
Do you mean the power of mumbo jumbo?
Maybe that's why I am an atheist;, I never had much tolerance for swallowing accepted doctrine when it smelled strongly of BS.

Bit like me and football. Bunch of lads kicking a ball around, couldn't give a damn about the colour shirts they're wearing or even watch the game for more than about three minutes, but I believe there are those quite passionate about these things. Rugby now I can sit and watch for hours and will shout for Ireland, Leinster, one of the provinces, any team from the Southern hemisphere, or the underdog putting their neck on the line with a passion. Each to their own, vive la difference and thank Arthur it's Friday

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I have no idea what that means.
Do you mean the power of mumbo jumbo?

No. It means you can't be a Christian on your own; you have to be part of a structured community, a church; Christianity is a relationship. Therefore if you have criticisms of the church, "leave the church" is not the first reaction. The first reaction is "fix the church".

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. It means you can't be a Christian on your own; you have to be part of a structured community, a church; Christianity is a relationship. Therefore if you have criticisms of the church, "leave the church" is not the first reaction. The first reaction is "fix the church".

That would only seem a realistic choice in those structured Christian churches that employ voting procedures for the membership, and some flexibility in their doctrine.

Peregrinus

All churches have some flexibility in their doctrine. Besides, your problem may not be doctrinal; it may be more to do with practices, organisation, authority, etc (as is McAleese's problem with misogyny in the Catholic church; she isn't really fussed about doctrine).

As for having voting procedures, it's a serious mistake with any social structure to assume that if there aren't voting procedures, there are no other ways for those participating in the structure to influence it. (Or, for that matter, that if there are voting procedures, only those who have a vote can influence the organisation).

recedite

The proof of the pudding is in the eating

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

The proof of the pudding is in the eating

Indeed. If you look at the way the Catholic church changed between, say, 1955 and 1975, and imagine that had nothing to do with people wanting those changes, talking about those changes, promoting those changes, working for those changes, collaborating to bring those changes about, well, your powers of self-delusion are impressive. Organisations which depend on people's commitment and adherence tend to be sensitive, one way or another, to what those people want. If they aren't, they don't survive. And the one thing the Catholic church has been impressively successful at is surviving.

Rather than leave the Catholic church, McAleese is attempting to do her bit to shift the climate of opinion with the Catholic church. That may piss them off in the Vatican, but it won't surprise them. That's a very Catholic way of responding to your own dissatisfaction with the Catholic church.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

And the one thing the Catholic church has been impressively successful at is surviving.

Oh I agree, that's probably why they dropped the archaic Latin mass in favour of something more user friendly.
But survival is the key factor driving any successful meme, not democracy.
A couple of generations ago people became convinced that the RCC was going to drop its objections to contraception, but they were wrong. Why would the church want to reduce its reproductive capacity?

By staying within the church, Mary Mc Aleese proves to those in charge that they can carry on as usual, and that they can safely ignore uppity women like her.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

By staying within the church, Mary Mc Aleese proves to those in charge that they can carry on as usual, and that they can safely ignore uppity women like her.

...as opposed to the way it hangs on the every word of uppity women who aren't Catholics?

smacl

recedite wrote: »

By staying within the church, Mary Mc Aleese proves to those in charge that they can carry on as usual, and that they can safely ignore uppity women like her.

Whatever about Rome, she doesn't seem to have been ignored locally. Diarmuid Martin seems in broad agreement with here even if he couches his words more carefully. Taken from the journal

During her speech yesterday, McAleese referred to the fact that Martin previously felt compelled to remark that “the low standing of women in the Catholic Church is the most significant reason for the feeling of alienation towards it in Ireland today”.

Responding to this, Martin said: “Indeed, I was happy to note that President McAleese quoted that exact phrase of mine in her speech today.

“Her challenge to the internal culture of the Church today was brutally stark. Some may find it unpleasant or unwelcome. I must accept the challenge with the humility of one who recognises her alienation.”

Peregrinus

Just to backtrack a moment, the issue here isn't how likely McAleese is to succeed in effecting any kind of change; it's whether it is surprising that she would try, rather than simply walk away. And the answer is, it's not at all surprising.

As for the church not being a democracy, yeah, it isn't. But democracy isn't the only mechanism by which organisations or movements can be influenced, nor necessarily (gasp!) the most effective. After all, in the secular world the 1% manage to be quite influential despite being only 1%.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

As for the church not being a democracy, yeah, it isn't. But democracy isn't the only mechanism by which organisations or movements can be influenced, nor necessarily (gasp!) the most effective. After all, in the secular world the 1% manage to be quite influential despite being only 1%.

With respect, in a democracy the 1% have a mandate of the majority of the citizenship. While easy enough to poke holes in, entirely preferable to an organisation such as the Catholic church making clandestine decisions behind closed doors. Comparison of a huge monolithic religious organisation to the secular world is also something of a false dichotomy as the secular world comprises a myriad of varied groups many of which have diametrically opposing views.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

With respect, in a democracy the 1% have a mandate of the majority of the citizenship . . .

No, they don't. They just have a lot of money.

pauldla

The South China Morning Post has an interesting article about early Christianity in the Middle Kingdom.

What happened to China’s early Christians and why did the Nestorian doctrine die out?

recedite

pauldla wrote: »

The South China Morning Post has an interesting article about early Christianity in the Middle Kingdom.

What happened to China’s early Christians and why did the Nestorian doctrine die out?

That's a nice illustration from the scroll, not sure where or when its from though? The scenery is reminiscent of a Japanese style, with the little maple tree and the gnarly older trees in the background. The halo and divine light is more of a Byzantine style influence.
The Sasanian Empire was interesting in religious terms, being a home to Zoroastrianism and Nestorian Christianity. I think both of these religions would have been more suitable for the modern world than the more fundamentalist ones that actually survived. They had a more humanist approach, and were more about balance and duality.

Sasanians and their intellectual rivals the Byzantines were both absorbed by the Muslim conquest in the end, and that extinguished any spread of their religions into China. Islam itself does not seem to suit the Chinese psyche, perhaps they are too logical.

Peregrinus

From the iconography this is not, as the caption suggests, "a Christian baptism in ancient China"; it's a depiction in a Chinese or more probably Japanese style of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist in the River Jordan. And I'm guessing it's a fairly modern image.

recedite

So its Japanese Jesus.

Peregrinus

Makes a change from the Swedish Jesus that we normally see.

Turtwig

Out of interest, purely on Jesus's likely colour of skin how many western countries would he be warmly welcomed in as a migrant by its citizens, in particular those of far right leaning motives?

recedite

I doubt anyone would notice. I think all western countries are multi-racial at this stage. The real controversy is whether they are multi-cultural.
So it wouldn't be his olive skin tones that would annoy people, it would be his preaching; bringing in some weird mysogynistic middle eastern religion

Peregrinus

It's not his misogyny that would be a problem; Jesus's teachings are not especially misogonynistic. It's the radical anti-capitalism and anti-consumerism that would threaten the whole basis of modern Western society.

Between that, and his ethnic and cultural background which, yes, Rec, would definitely attract the attention of racists, I imagine he would not fare well. Probably end up being nailed to a cross.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not his misogyny that would be a problem; Jesus's teachings are not especially misogonynistic. It's the radical anti-capitalism and anti-consumerism that would threaten the whole basis of modern Western society.

Between that, and his ethnic and cultural background which, yes, Rec, would definitely attract the attention of racists, I imagine he would not fare well. Probably end up being nailed to a cross.

personally I wouldn't like to live in a straw hut waiting for the second coming , its good I guess that only a tiny tiny number of people take him literally

pauldla

silverharp wrote: »

personally I wouldn't like to live in a straw hut waiting for the second coming , its good I guess that only a tiny tiny number of people take him literally

It seems He was supposed to return within the lifetime of his contemporaries, something that caused the early church some bafflement when it didn't happen and continued not happening.

smacl

pauldla wrote: »

It seems He was supposed to return within the lifetime of his contemporaries, something that caused the early church some bafflement when it didn't happen and continued not happening.

Maybe he made the mistake of being born into a Cathar or Muslim family second time out and got burnt as a heretic by some passing crusaders