Interstellar... technically Intergalactic?

I can still remember the feeling of awe when I first saw the teaser of Interstellar a year ago. Several scenes in the movie evoked the same feeling in me. This may not be Nolan's best but still is a pretty good movie. 

A lot has been said about the science in Interstellar. Who better than real scientists to give their views on it: Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson and Phil Plait (who also corrected himself here), and Katie Mack. For a self-proclaimed science enthusiast like me with a particular love for astronomy, this particular aspect seemed intriguing. Although I never really expect Christopher Nolan to make a very science-centric film. His sci-fi films seem more philosophical in nature, that ponder on the human implications of science & technology. Inception never really dealt with the actual process of "dream sharing" but rather its implications. Interstellar is along the same lines. The depiction of wormhole travel and the rendering of the black hole were superb. I loved how they depicted concepts like higher dimensions and relativity, and integrated them thoughtfully into the storyline. The warping of space-time on and near the event horizon was demonstrated visually as well. On a more philosophical note, the way the characters rue the death of scientific temperament & exploration, echoes what many scientists say. From my less-than-expert knowledge, I could immediately note some problems. The communication by Cooper with himself and his daughter through the Tesseract seemed weird. The on-the-fly navigation decisions were also pretty far-fetched. Using gravitational slingshot for travel requires pretty precise calculations, and doing it on a random neutron star or black hole ain't no piece of cake. 

The storyline is very solid. I starts with  a very grim, but very possible, future and works its way to a happy ending. It still would be depressing if we messed up earth so much that we have to risk our lives in this manner than be able to fix it. The visual effects and cinematography are breath-taking and what we have come to expect from Nolan. It is the actors & actresses that are really at the forefront with good performances for all the major characters. This was crucial in a movie that focused a lot on the psychological struggle of an endeavour of this nature.

Honestly, I can brush aside the minor scientific flaws in a movie that overall celebrates science and puts it front & center like few others have done. Like I pointed out before, Nolan is expected to bring the human element to sci-fi. If I have any real complaint about the movie, it is about how this is handled in the movie. If this is a movie about humanity, there should be more of "humanity". Hollywood tends to be US-centric for obvious reasons, but you would expect someone like Nolan to have a more worldly view. Think about the demographics of NASA. In a dying world presented in the movie, won't those smart brains have already left the US for their homes in Europe, Asia? Also, other countries are taking great strides in space exploration. NASA isn't the only player in the game anymore, and it definitely won't be in such a future. Undertaking a mission of this magnitude will require help from several agencies. It was good to see both male & female scientists in the movie working together. There was the token black guy on the crew, but there seemed to be no people on the ground or in the crew from two huge nations that are showing promise for space exploration: India and China. Would have made more sense for this to be a world-wide effort. Although, I did like the nod to Indian engineering acumen (where did that come from?) in the autonomous drone scene.

To conclude, I am glad this is a movie that truly embraces science & exploration. Our universe is awe-inspiring, and there's only a handful of movies that really bring out the majesty of it.

Changing Of The Guard

The term "New Atheism" is quite a misnomer, and is regarded by many atheists with disdain. It is generally used to denote the rise of an "in your face" activist movement of unbelief created largely by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett in the wake of 9/11. To give them credit, they were responsible for bringing a lot of atheists out of the closet. Reading their work and watching their debates was an important catalyzing factor for my transformation from an agnostic "live and let live with religion" kind of person to a more confrontational atheist. I think that I speak for most who share my lack of belief in the supernatural, when I say how annoying I find that a lot of "defenders of religion" make personal slants against these atheist "celebrities" as arguments in their favour, as if all atheists singularly conform to the same set of principles and opinions that they may have.

To be fair, they have garnered a massive following. It's not like there aren't a large number of people who swear by everything that they say. But it is very short-sighted to assume that all atheists think in the same way. In fact, if you take any two atheists, the only thing that you can be certain is common between them is their lack of belief in any god. Personally speaking, there is so much I would disagree with some of these famous atheists. And this difference has become even starker in recent times. Speaking of similarities though, what is immediately noticed when seeing all of these big names is one similarity: they are all middle-aged white men. This predominance is through no fault of their own, it merely reflects the more general tendency of world pop culture. And in the decade since they burst on the scene, it really didn't matter much. They were dealing with issues that cut across all groups within atheism. They were providing the voice of reason against the rise of fundamentalism: from the Islamic terrorists to the Christian right in USA and parts of Europe. Atheism has grown in society ever since science has been consistently advancing our understanding. The spike in growth over the course of the 1st decade of the 21st century, initially at least, seemed to be in the white Western male demographic. Even if that weren't true, the vocal atheist community (online as well) tended to be largely white male. It used to be a boys' club during that period. 

In the last 4-5 years, or so I think, some important changes happened. The demographic has been expanding. Women, people of color (who would otherwise have already been atheists in large numbers) have made their presence felt in the atheist "community" (I will use that term loosely along with "movement." It's just to denote the overall existence of several atheist groups and forums, not a consolidated singular entity). This has happened at the same time the focus within these groups has expanded from merely battling the forces of religious fundamentalism, to providing meaningful reason-based solutions for the world. One would assume that the coincidence of these two events is perfectly timed to advance towards common goals. However, with different demographics come very differing points of view. As I noted before, a lot of these atheist groups and communities were used to being boys' clubs. And let's just say, misogyny is not uncommon. Over the course of time, prominent speakers/bloggers/scientists such as Rebecca Watson, PZ Myers, Ophelia Benson, and Greta Christina have brought out issues of sexism within the atheist community, but the response has been simply disappointing. And a lot of times, some of the atheist "celebrities" have been guilty of misogynistic comments and actions themselves.

A few years ago, in response to Rebecca Watson's vlog speaking about her gender-based experiences at an atheist convention, Richard Dawkins wrote a patronizing "letter" satirizing her "imagined slight" as opposed to the REAL oppression faced by Muslim women in the Arab world. More recently, Michael Shermer has been accused of sexual assault (non-consensual sex with a woman who was under the influence of alcohol while Shermer wasn't), and again, Dawkins has been quick to offer tacit support by questioning the testimony of a drunk woman. Also, there is Sam Harris who responded to the "Why aren't there a lot of women atheists?" with a statement that women tend to be "nurturing" and not immediately attracted to "intense critical thinking," and yes, they also find him "unsexy" (Video here.) When questioned about his responses, his excuses ranged from "it was a joke" to an allusion that the other side was being too politically correct and trying to brush aside what - according to him - are obvious differences between male and female brains. (Actual peer-reviewed research suggests no such purely biological factors exist, and that it has a lot to do with cultural divisions between the sexes.) Dawkins, again, joined in defense of Harris, and they belittled all criticism as "fishing for offense."

Cases like this are not uncommon. These "stalwarts" brand any criticism of them - especially by feminists - as malicious and attention-seeking. Then there is a sort of "coterie" of bloggers and writers who are friendly with famous atheists, that immediately jump to their defense. After them come a set of very annoying YouTube atheist stars that will post half-baked arguments, mostly regurgitating the excuses presented by their champions. After this layer, come the more general rabid fan club members, who are the source of some of the most vile attacks: abuses, rape threats, exposing personal information online, baseless attacks of their looks, etc. That takes care of the misogyny part. Then there is the cultural-racial divide. I haven't seen any particular instances of systemic bias against black people within the atheist community, but a lot of prominent atheists are absent on conversations of race, especially in America. Atheism in India and the rest of Asia seems more or less confined to its own group. Dealing with Islam is more of a grey area, because on the one hand, you have Muslim extremists who frequently hide behind "Islamophobia"/racism to shield themselves from thought-provoking criticism. But at the same time, one can't help but feel that a lot of these prominent atheists display very neo-conservative tendencies when dealing with terrorism, and tend to ignore some very important geo-political factors. Yes, Islamic terrorism does get its inspiration directly from quotations in the Quran and the Hadiths; however, ignoring the effects of Western imperialistic aggression in the Middle-East is over-simplifying the issue. 

As the topics of discourse within the atheist community widen, it seems that we are heading to a turning point of sorts. This extends to the scientific community at large, which also faces several gender/racial problems. Let's make one thing clear:  these problems are in no way unique to the scientific community at all, they are a reflection of our society in general. However, that can't be an excuse. As the promoters of rationalism, it is imperative that we look within and examine criticism of our approach. These atheist speakers have been very successful in debating creationists, religious apologists by bringing out their sound arguments while the other side resorts to denial, defensive posturing, and outright reactionary dismissal. It is curious to see that as we have moved towards a more diverse atheist community, and these old, narrow views have been challenged, we are seeing almost the same reaction from these old men: denial, defensive posturing, and outright reactionary dismissal.

I prefer to keep an optimistic view of things. Collision is inevitable when any avenue visited by a limited demographic opens to a wider audience. Ultimately, progress is the only way to go. In time, I hope these non-white atheists and feminist speakers and bloggers will be able to make an impact and cause some introspection within the atheist community. These people have experiences and ideas that may not have been brought up for discussion previously, and they should be embraced, not instantly and automatically dismissed. Even with the big names, the problem is that they all share a background that has kept them ignorant of the subtle gender and racial issues. But ignorance is not an excuse in this age when it is so easy to obtain different points of view from people and change your outlook accordingly. For people in science, it is a joy to have their mistakes pointed out. It's just sad to see that a group of people who promote reason fail to use it when it comes to reevaluating their own worldview. Instead they aggressively defend their flawed views with loose rationale, and the kind of empty arguments that they would otherwise point out in others. These people can keep denying the problems, but ultimately others will have progressed to a more advanced state of discussion, and they will be left scampering to catch up, not quite unlike the religious people who have to reconcile the morals in their outdated books.

The line it is drawn

The curse it is cast

The slow one now

Will later be fast

As the present now

Will later be past

The order is rapidly fadin’

And the first one now will later be last

For the times they are a-changin’ 

- Bob Dylan

Musings: An alternate history of the Crusades

The Crusades represent perhaps the worst of the Middle Ages, an already shameful time in human history. Of course, followers of the two religions involved romanticize the Crusades focusing on their respective conquests. The aggregate outcome was that Christendom came out of the Crusades as  the "victor" because it was able to establish the East-West trade route and prospered, while despite defending their lands Muslim factions (except the Turks) faced heavy losses and all but lost their former glory. 

When we talk of religion today, Islam stands out as the largest purveyor of violence, and it is true. The overwhelming majority of violence, atrocities, and acts of terror are carried out by people drawing inspiration from Islam. There is no question about that. However, when the topic comes up for discourse in the West, very often an allusion is made that there is something wrong in particular about Islam or within the Quran. This could not be further from the truth. There are equally, if not more, reprehensible and dangerous passages in the Bible and for all the excuses made about the poetry and inspiring teachings in the Bible, similar things can also be found in the Quran, and they aren't unique or original to either. Then there are arguments about how "Western culture" just happens to be better than "Islamic culture."

Now culture is generally aggregated over time. At this point in history, we do see that a majority of countries with predominantly Muslim populations suffer from many evils. But go back a few decades, and it was "Western culture" to treat people of non-white color as inferior, and women of any color as inferior. A little over a century ago, it was perfectly fine to brand aforementioned "inferior" people as animals and witches, and burn them alive. Yes, Western society has moved on since then, while most of the places in the Arab world are still stuck in those brutal times. The "enlightenment" never happened in the Arab world. The main reason for this is the economic stagnation: while there are rich sheikhs swimming in oil, the majority of the population in the Arab world remains in economic hardship. They were never introduced to democratic rule:  power of the people. The only real distinguishing factor is the different paths that the regions heavily following these two religions took post the Middle ages. During the course of a discussion, I heard the argument from a person that "she was glad that the conclusion of the Crusades happened the way it did, because she would hate to have to wear a burqa." I immediately saw this point as hollow, because if history turned out differently, neither Islam nor Christianity would have turned out the way that they have. So here is an alternate history:

The Ottoman Empire is able to expand upwards from Romania, and maintain its economic stronghold. The influence of the papal order wanes with the lack of economic power. Infighting between the kingdoms resume to gain control of the remaining scraps. The Islamic world continues to revere the ancient works of science and literature. With continuing prosperity, more centers of learning and culture emerge. The "Enlightenment" happens, and thinkers rise that question the absolutist, dangerous teachings within the Quran. They are faced with stigmatization, prison, and even death. Eventually reason wins, and Islam is forced to reexamine its position, given the role that science plays in the continuing progress of the Arab civilization. Meanwhile, the Roman Catholic Church still manages to use religion to stay relevant even between warring factions. Feudalism continues, with no sign of the rise of any "Renaissance" in the destitute poverty that most of the people live in. Witch-burning and bloody wars continue in an endless cycle.

Explorers from Turkey would travel to the Americas. Islamic explorers wage bloody battles in South America against the Incas, expanding the Islamic culture.  However, in North America, small bands of Islamic "rebels," wanting a freer society would end up on the North-Eastern shores. Carrying no inherently indigenous diseases, rather than wiping out the local population, they would be forced to co-exist at the minimum level. Attempts at conquest by Muslim pilgrims would not be as successful, and ultimately the local Americans and Muslims would lay the foundations towards a pluralistic society.

Back in the Middle-East, at the turn of the 19th century, science slowly overcomes religion. There are groundbreaking discoveries in technology and understanding of nature, facilitated by works that were never lost after the Crusades. These are further contributed by the existence of a direct trade channel with the East. Even as the Mughals fall to the Marathas in India, these routes continue. The rest of the Islamic world comes to a compromise with the Marathas regarding their sovereignty over the Indian lands*. Revival of ancient Indian literature, coupled with the Indian renaissance to rid society of superstitious evils leads to a strong, united India with a sense of nationalism even before the 20th century dawns. Coupled with the influence of the new Indian nation and similar cultures in the Far East, thinkers in the Arab nations make a push for democracy. Islam is influenced by this progressive culture to become more open, making followers brush aside the violent aspects of the Hadiths.

In Europe, civilization still lingers in the Dark Ages. Women and ethnic Jews are blamed for the overwhelming poverty and strife. These groups are still regularly tortured and killed. The Catholic Church continues to exert its influence. It keeps out the influence of the progressive nations of Asia and the Middle East, demonizing them and exhorting people to reject their "corrupt" ideas. These infidels are also to blame for draining Europe of its wealth. No World Wars happen, instead there are several smaller conflicts: between China and Japan, between certain Arab nations over political ambitions, and between Muslim colonist and local Americas over sovereignty in the Americas. No longer at the mercy of violent battles between outside colonizers, the African nations slowly rise.** Formerly influenced by Islam, yet retaining their ancient sense of African heritage, they slowly move away from organized religion and return to their richer African culture. Leaders emerge that use economic stimulus and education to stop tribal wars, thus uniting them under their respective national flags. They willingly immigrate to newer lands of opportunity in the Americas (and yes, African American culture still thrives). And the burqa would be an exhibit in a museum or a uniform for the religiously devout Muslim women clerics in madrasas.

* Trade routes between India and the Arab world existed for centuries. Once the Mughals fell, Arabs would see little reason to risk a beneficial economic partnership over any ambitious plans to start a battle against a well-equipped and invigorated Maratha Empire.

** A big reason for the perpetual poverty in Africa is that they were constantly stuck in the tug of war between Europeans and the Arabs. In a world where Europe falls, and it is the neighbouring Arab world that undergoes an "Enlightenment." Africa gets a chance to breathe and escape the clutches of colonialism on its own.