John Money:a brief history.

 John Money

Wikipedia

John William Money (8 July 1921 – 7 July 2006) was a New Zealand American psychologist, sexologist and professor at Johns Hopkins University known for his research on human sexual behavior and gender.

Working with endocrinologist Claude Migeon, Money established the Johns Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic, the first clinic in the United States to perform sexual reassignment surgeries.[1] Money advanced the use of more accurate terminology in sex research, coining the terms gender role and sexual orientation.[2][3] Despite widespread popular belief, Money did not coin 'gender identity'.[4] Money pioneered drug treatment for sex offenders in order to extinguish their sex drives.[5] He began testing anti-androgen medications on offenders as early as 1966, which yielded successful results.[6]

Starting in the 1990s, the work and research conducted by Money has been subjected to significant academic and public scrutiny. A 1997 academic study criticised Money's work in many respects, particularly in regard to the involuntary sex-reassignment of the child David Reimer, and Money's sexual abuse of Reimer and his brother when they were children.[7][8] Some of Money's sessions involved Money forcing the two children to perform sexual activities with each other, which Money then photographed.[9][10] David Reimer lived a troubled life, eventually committing suicide at 38; his brother died of an overdose at age 36.[11][12]

Money's writing has been translated into many languages and includes around 2,000 articles, books, chapters and reviews. He received around 65 honours, awards and degrees in his lifetime.[2]

The Reagan revolution: a brief history.

File under "well said" XCIV

 "We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another."

Jonathan Swift

The Hindu/Muslim rivalry:a brief history.

 

Hindu–Islamic relations

Wikipedia

Interactions between the followers of Islam and Hinduism began in the 7th century, after the advent of the latter in the Arabian Peninsula. These interactions were mainly by trade throughout the Indian Ocean. Historically, these interactions formed contrasting patterns in northern and southern India. In the north, there is a long-standing historical influence from Muslim rulers and Christian rulers dating back to the Delhi Sultanate of the 13th century. The patterns of relationship between Hindus and Muslims have been different between north and south India. While there is a history of conquest and domination in the north, Hindu-Muslim relations in Kerala and Tamil Nadu have been peaceful.[1] However, historical evidence has shown that violence had existed by the year 1700 A.D.[2]

In the 16th century, the Mughal Empire was established. Under the Mughals, India experienced a period of relative stability and prosperity.[3] The Mughals were known for their religious tolerance, and they actively patronized the arts and literature. During the Mughal era, Indian art and culture thrived, with the construction of grand monuments such as the Taj Mahal and the Red Fort. While the Mughals fostered religious harmony and cultural advancements and nurtured Hindu scholars, poets, and artists, facilitating a dynamic cultural interchange that enriched both Islamic and Hindu traditions, there were instances of religious conflicts between the Mughals and the Rajput over control of territories. Aurangzeb was criticized for his policies of religious intolerance towards Hindus.[4][5]

During the 17th to 19th centuries, India was ruled by the British, who introduced a policy of divide and rule to maintain their control over the country.[6][7][8] The British also introduced a system of separate electorates, which further exacerbated the divide between the Hindu and Muslim communities.[9][10] The Indian Rebellion of 1857, also known as the First War of Independence, was a major uprising against British rule in India. The rebellion was fueled by a range of grievances, including economic exploitation, social and religious discrimination, and political oppression.[11][12][13] While the rebellion was not solely based on religious tensions between Hindus and Muslims, these tensions did play a role in fueling the conflict. During the rebellion, there were instances of both Muslim and Hindu soldiers and civilians fighting together against the British, as well as instances of conflict between the two communities.[14][15][16]

Islam and Hinduism share some ritual practices, such as fasting and pilgrimage, but their views differ on various aspects. There are also hundreds of shared ritual spaces, called dargahs (literally, “doorway” or “threshold”), for Hindus and Muslims. These mark shrines for revered Muslim (frequently Sufi) leaders and are visited by both Muslims and Hindus. Their interaction has witnessed periods of cooperation and syncretism, and periods of religious discrimination, intolerance, and violence. As a religious minority in India, Muslims are part of the Indian culture and have lived with Hindus for over 13 centuries. Despite the longtime assertion that the origins of Muslim-Hindu tensions were greatly attributed to 19th Century British colonial rule in India, it has been argued that Britain had little influence on constructing the religious identities of Islam and Hinduism in the region and that divisions existed beforehand as well.[17] For example, 18th-century Mughal–Maratha Wars. Ajay Verghese argues that the Hindu-Muslim conflict in India can be better understood by analyzing the historical relationship between the two communities. He contends that precolonial India was marked by a fluidity of religious identity and that religious boundaries were not always clear-cut. This led to a degree of intermingling between Muslims and Hindus, but also created conditions for tension and conflict.[2]

Ps. What I would add is that most of these "religious" rivalries are really political rivalries masquerading as religious rivalries.

Darwinists' problem is not with design but the designer.

 

New Study Reveals How the Shape of My Nose Arose

Cornelius G Hunter

It is ironic that Charles Lyell, whose seminal, if flawed, work in geology—the barrister is sometimes known as the father of modern geology—positively influenced Charles Darwin’s development of evolutionary theory—the young Darwin read Lyell’s book as he sailed around the world in the H.M.S. Beagle—and who helped to arrange for Darwin’s first formal, if awkward, presentation of his theory—an event precipitated by Wallace’s Ternate letter—was one of the last of the intelligentsia to accept Darwin’s new formulation of Epicureanism, known as evolution.

At one point an exasperated Darwin asked Lyell—it always comes down to metaphysics—if he believed “the shape of my nose was designed?” If Lyell did think so then, Darwin added, “I have nothing more to say.” The infra-dignitatem, or infra-dig for the irreverent, argument, which insisted that it was beneath the dignity of the Creator to stoop so low as to dwell in the details of the world, had been promoted by no less than the father of natural theology John Ray and Platonist Ralph Cudworth, and in Darwin’s day was in full swing. Its influence on the young Darwin was clear in the naturalist’s early notebooks, and here in his appeal to Lyell. One look at one’s nose is all one needs to know about origins. Obviously we evolved. Now, a century and a half later, science finally has its say in the matter.

A new Study out of, appropriately enough, England, now reveals the underlying genetic details that influence the shape of our noses. It seems there are four genes that influence the width and length of our olfactory device and, as the press release informs us, “The new information adds to our understanding of how the human face evolved.”

We are free to acknowledge free moral agency

 Free Will: What Are the Reasons to Believe in It?

Denyse O'Leary

University of Missouri psychology professor Kennon Sheldon’s message is neatly summed up in an opening statement: “Regardless of whether humans do or don’t have free will, psychological research shows it’s beneficial to act as if you do.”

The author of Freely Determined: What the New Psychology of the Self Teaches Us About How to Live (Basic Books, 2022) responds to philosophers who say that we do not have free will:

All my life, I’ve struggled with the question of whether humans have ‘free will’. It catalysed my decision to become a psychologist and continues to inspire my research to this day, especially as it relates to the kinds of goals people set for themselves, and the effects of goal-striving on people’s happiness and wellbeing.

I’ve come to the conclusion that people really do have free will, at least when it is defined as the ability to make reasoned choices among action possibilities that we ourselves think up…

Regardless of who is correct in this debate, my work has led me to a second conclusion that I consider even more important than whether we have free will or not. It’s that a belief in our own capacity to make choices is critical for our mental health. At the very least, this belief lets us function ‘as if’ we have free will, which greatly benefits us.

KENNON SHELDON, “THE THREE REASONS WHY IT’S GOOD FOR YOU TO BELIEVE IN FREE WILL,” PSYCHE, JUNE 15, 2023 

An Obvious Problem

Now, the obvious problem with his approach is that if we believe in free will simply because that belief is supposed to be good for our mental health, then we really don’t believe in it.

A simple example suffices: We sometimes hear that being optimistic is also better for mental health. In one sense, that’s true. If we focus on the positive things, our lives feel more pleasant and that is bound to be better for mental health. But what if we have no good reason for optimism? What if we live under an active volcano that shows signs of erupting? Optimism (“it probably won’t really happen this year”) could delay evacuation past the point of no return.

So let’s look back at free will in this light: If we believe that we have it — and that belief is true — we are empowered to deal with temptations and addictions, firm in the knowledge that we really can cast the deciding vote for our best possible outcome. But if free will is not true, we are setting ourselves up for delusion if we succeed and needless disappointment and misery if we fail. Not only that but we are participating in an unfair system where people are judged and punished for unwise or bad behavior that they cannot really help. So functioning “as if” we have free will turns out not to be very good at all.

“A Better Person”?

Sheldon goes on to say,

The second reason why I consider belief in free will to be beneficial is that it makes you a better person. Studies in social psychology show clearly that, if people become convinced that they have no free will, there can be negative effects on their ethical behaviour.

SHELDON, PSYCHE, 2023

Perhaps that’s true but it amounts to saying that perhaps we should be deluded for our own good. Even though delusions are said to be bad for us… Is there any light at the end of this tunnel? 

Sheldon offers a reason why some thinkers deny free will:

You might wonder why anyone would choose to believe in determinism, given the clear negative effects of this belief? There are several possible reasons. Some people might think that determinism is the most scientific and intellectually sophisticated position to take, and they like feeling smarter than others.

SHELDON, PSYCHE, 2023

Well, if science matters, the good news is that neuroscience provides sound reasons to believe in free will. As Stony Brook neurosurgeon Michael Egnor has pointed out, the work of neuroscience pioneer Benjamin Libet established that we certainly have “free won’t” — the ability to choose not to do something:

[W]hat he found was, when you made a decision to push the button [in a psychological experiment], you still had the brain wave that preceded the decision by half a second. But when you decided to veto pushing the button, there was no new brain wave at all. It was silent in terms of brain waves. But you did make the decision to veto. So he said that it wasn’t so much that you have free will but you have free won’t. That is, you have the ability to decide whether or not you are going to comply with what your brain is urging you to do. And that compliance is not material. It’s not a brain wave. It’s immaterial.

MICHAEL EGNOR, “HOW A NEUROSCIENTIST IMAGED FREE WILL (AND “FREE WON’T”),” MIND MATTERS NEWS, MARCH 19, 2020 

What Quantum Mechanics Shows

Physicist Marcelo Gleiser also notes that science does not really support the view that free will is an illusion: “[T]he mind is not a solar system with strict deterministic laws. We have no clue what kinds of laws it follows, apart from very simplistic empirical laws about nerve impulses and their propagation, which already reveal complex nonlinear dynamics.” In any event, quantum mechanics shows that nature is indeterminate at the fundamental level and that the observer’s decision of what to measure plays a role in what happens. One outcome is that a number of younger thinkers accept free will as consistent with the evidence.

In other words, we can accept free will based on the evidence. There is no particular need to think that it might be a possibly pleasant delusion.

A theory of devolution?

 Is Adaptation Actually a Fight to Stay the Same?

Andrew McDiarmid

On a new episode of ID the Future, host Casey Luskin talks with Eric Anderson on location at this year’s Conference on Engineering and Living Systems (CELS). The two discuss an intriguing new engineering-based model of bounded adaptation that could dramatically change how we view small-scale evolutionary changes within populations of organisms. In presenting his argument for natural selection, Charles Darwin pointed to small changes like finch beak size and peppered moth color as visible evidence of an unguided evolutionary process at work. Many have adopted this perspective, quick to grant the Darwinian mechanism credit for micro-, if not macro-, evolution. But Anderson and other attendees at the CELS conference are starting to promote a different view. “We need to stop saying organisms are partly designed,” says Anderson. “We need to view them as deeply designed and purposeful, active and engaged in their environments, and capable of adapting within their operating parameters.” To get a fascinating glimpse of this novel approach to biology, download the podcast or listen to it here .