News bits: Science-based spirituality; Gerrymandering's unintended consequences

An interesting research paper, Spirituality of Science: Implications for Meaning, Well-Being, and Learning, indicates an aspect of spirituality that isn't discussed much:

Awe-inspiring science can have a positive effect on mental wellbeing

Research led by psychologists at the University of Warwick has revealed a profound connection between the spirituality of science and positive wellbeing, much like the benefits traditionally associated with religion.

The research explored how people use science as a source of spirituality and its connection with their sense of wellbeing.

Dr Jesse Preston, Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Warwick and lead author of the study said: “Spirituality is most often associated with religion, but science can be a powerful source of awe and wonder for many. It can provide a meaningful source of understanding oneself and the universe, and it can foster a sense of connection to others and our place in the world.”

Science parallels positive wellbeing observed in religious people

In three studies, Dr. Preston and her research team surveyed 1197 people (602 men, 589 women, and 6 others) on their attitudes towards religious beliefs, spirituality and their interest and belief in science.

The first study established the concept of “Spirituality of Science”, and asked people about feelings of transcendence, connection and meaning when engaging with science. Participants’ responses were compared with other attitudes towards science, including an interest in science and belief in science, feelings of awe, meaning in their lives and religious beliefs.

Spirituality of Science was related to belief in science, but unlike other attitudes including interest in science and belief in science, Spirituality of Science was also associated with feelings of awe and general spirituality. This showed that scientific sources of spirituality may be psychologically similar to religious spirituality.

In a 2014 book, Waking Up: A guide to Spirituality Without Religion, Sam Harris described spirituality and religion like this:

Twenty percent of Americans describe themselves as “spiritual but not religious.” Although the claim seems to annoy believers and atheists equally, separating spirituality from religion is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It is to assert two important truths simultaneously: Our world is dangerously riven by religious doctrines that all educated people should condemn, and yet there is more to understanding the human condition than science and secular culture generally admit. 

I should address the animosity that many readers feel toward the term spiritual. Whenever I use the word, as in referring to meditation as a “spiritual practice,” I hear from fellow skeptics and atheists who think that I have committed a grievous error. The word spirit comes from the Latin spiritus, which is a translation of the Greek pneuma, meaning “breath.” Around the thirteenth century, the term became entangled with beliefs about immaterial souls, supernatural beings, ghosts, and so forth. It ac quired other meanings as well: We speak of the spirit of a thing as its most essential principle or of certain volatile substances and liquors as spirits. Nevertheless, many nonbelievers now consider all things “spiritual” to be contaminated by medieval superstition. 

I do not share their semantic concerns.

Maybe a person's interest and happiness with secular things like science and nature just reflects a form of spirituality other than a formal or informal religion. Guess in retrospect, all of that is obvious. The research paper is here.

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

A WaPo article writes about backfired gerrymandering:

Illinois Democrats drew new maps 

They pushed the GOP to the right

The state’s congressional redistricting illustrates how gerrymandering hollows out the political center and strengthens the fringe, experts say

On a warm Friday night in the St. Mary’s Catholic Church parking lot, sweating men sipping cold beers dipped fish fillets into bubbling deep fryers as children played on the bouncy castle.

This down-home fish fry used to be a regular stop for U.S. Rep. Rodney Davis, a moderate Republican who grew up in this former coal town in Central Illinois. But that was before new district lines drawn in 2021 pushed him into far more conservative terrain — and into competition with a fellow GOP incumbent.

To keep his job in Congress, Davis had to square off with Rep. Mary E. Miller, a member of the right-wing Freedom Caucus who closely aligned herself with former president Donald Trump. In the primary campaign, she assailed Davis for his willingness to compromise with Democrats and to acknowledge Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election.

Miller, the hard-liner, won the 2022 race. Davis, the consensus-seeker, was out.

The bitter Republican feuding was not merely a symptom of the broader civil war in the national party. Rather, it was prompted by the actions of Illinois Democrats, who used their supermajority in the legislature to redraw district lines in a way that would strengthen their already titanium-solid lock on power.

The strategy worked, adding one Democratic seat to the Illinois delegation and trimming two Republican ones as GOP voters were packed into a smaller number of districts. 

The new map also accomplished what experts say gerrymandering does with ruthless efficiency, regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans are responsible: hollowing out the moderate political center and driving both parties further toward the ideological fringes. 

“Gerrymandering undermines a key element of democracy, which is competition,” said Harvard University government professor Steven Levitsky.  

Politicians representing more-evenly split districts fear general election competition and therefore tend to govern more moderately, Levitsky said. But those in lopsided districts worry more about primary challenges and become responsive to the extremes in their party.  

“What’s really new about our politics today is that the radical fringe on the right, who are pretty authoritarian and pretty nativist, are now exercising outsize power,” Levitsky said.

13 states get an F

For years, gerrymandering to increase competition is something that seemed highly desirable to me. Then a few years ago, the radical right gerrymandered their way into power and that led to reconsidering that pro-competition belief for voting. Should Democrats fight for less partisan voting districts to avoid losing democracy to corrupt authoritarianism? Fight fire with fire? 

In view of this, more competition in voting seems better than less. A report broadcast on NPR yesterday indicated that Republicans in Matt Gaetz' gerrymandered Florida voting district were very happy to, as they see it, see Gaetz stand up to congress for them. One has to ask, stand up for exactly what? But that doesn't matter. It reflects the fact that no matter what Gaetz says or does, he will be re-elected to the House for as long as he wants. No Democratic Party candidate has a chance of winning the Gaetz Voting District.   

Now my mind has flipped. I'm back to opposing partisan gerrymandering (to offset Republican gerrymandering) and supporting pro-competition gerrymandering, or at least significantly less partisan gerrymandering.

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

A WaPo article logic checks an FBI targets Trump supporters story that Newsweek published recently. Newsweek failed basic logic. Recently, Newsweek has been increasingly publishing pro-authoritarian radical right content. The WaPo writes:

It is not surprising that the assertion outlined in Newsweek’s headline — “Donald Trump Followers Targeted by FBI as 2024 Election Nears” — has been embraced as revelatory by Trump’s base.

That’s despite the lack of evidence within the article itself for this explosive claim.

That’s the fundamental problem with the report, written by [Newsweek reporter] William Arkin: That case is not made. Arkin presents some numbers and quotes, but none add up to “FBI singling out Trump supporters,” as the headline implies. Instead, it describes a new threat category created by federal law enforcement that includes people inspired to violent action by Trump — but also violent actors inspired by other ideologies and candidates. That may be a shift in the FBI’s approach, as Arkin argues, but it isn’t one aimed at broadly targeting Trump supporters.

Here’s the heart of Arkin’s argument, describing the extension of the group seen as “anti-government or anti-authority violent extremists” (AGAAVE):

“[T]he FBI went further in October 2022 when it created a new subcategory—'AGAAVE-Other’ — of those who were a threat but do not fit into its anarchist, militia or Sovereign Citizen groups. Introduced without any announcement, and reported here for the first time, the new classification is officially defined as 'domestic violent extremists who cite anti-government or anti-authority motivations for violence or criminal activity not otherwise defined, such as individuals motivated by a desire to commit violence against those with a real or perceived association with a specific political party or faction of a specific political party.’”

“Though Trump and MAGA are never mentioned in the official description of AGAAVE-Other, government insiders acknowledge that it applies to political violence ascribed to the former president’s supporters.”

That last paragraph is crucial. Notice that the insiders don’t claim it only applies to Trump supporters or even only to political violence from Trump supporters. This is a Logic 101 test question: Just because everything in Set A belongs to Set B does not mean that Set B only includes things from Set A. The word “felony” applies to bank robbery, but that doesn’t mean that “felony” only describes bank robberies.

So here, the facts are correct, but the logic is garbage. Did Newsweek make this obvious mistake because it is quietly pro-authoritarian radical right? It is hard to see this being a good faith mistake, but easy to see it being authoritarian radical right propaganda.