The Ultimate Truth-Seeker Challenge: I Accept!

I follow most of the mainstream atheist blogs (Pharyngula, the Friendly Atheist, etc.), but the blog I most enjoy reading is Common Sense Atheism. Luke, the author, takes a very even-handed approach to religion, and is almost always engaged in one or more debates with well-read and articulate theists. I especially enjoy his criticisms of the New Atheists--not because I always agree with him, but because it is damn hard to find atheists willing to criticize the mainstream icons of the atheist movement. He does it very well, too; I've changed my mind on more than one occasion after reading his thoughts on The God Delusion or a Christopher Hitchens debate.

Anyways, Luke recently posted a reading challenge for both atheists and religious people: The Ultimate Truth-Seeker Challenge. I'm not stupid enough to accept just any reading challenge, especially not one that will almost certainly take longer than a year, but I've been attempting my own haphazard version of this anyways. It's been difficult, because I honestly don't know what's crap and what isn't, and I end up wasting my time reading shit like Timothy Keller's The Reason For God. (I made it through about five chapters before I wanted to kill myself.) I trust Luke, who is far more well-versed in the philosophy of religion than I am, has chosen books which really represent the best of both sides.

So, I plan to begin this challenge by March 2010, after I finish the four or so books that I'm currently reading. I doubt I'll finish it within a year (there are only 25 books, but some of them are quite long and I'm going to be starting grad school), but I'm going to keep myself accountable by continuing to update this blog with my reflections on the books as I read them. I'm also not going to abandon my own reading list, so who knows how long this will take me. Will I ever read fiction again?

Insect of the Week: Blue Ant

Yeah, so I know I didn't do an Insect of the Week last week, and this week's is way late (I try to do them on Thursdays), but I never pretended to be a responsible blogger so stop whining and check out this badass mofo:


Despite the name, this female blue ant is actually a wasp of the species Diamma bicolor. Blue Ants are found in Tasmania, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. Oz Animals has this description:

Blue Ants are not ants at all but the wingless females of a species of Flower Wasp. The female is has a glossy blue green body with reddish legs. They move across the ground with a rapid restless motion with abdomen raised above the ground. The winged male and is slender and much smaller with more typical wasp appearance. Males have black with white spots on the abdomen. The female wasps paralyse mole crickets as food for their larvae. The female wasp can give a painful sting if disturbed, but they are not commonly encountered by people.

Blue Ants are parasitic wasps and lay their eggs on mole crickets. The female wasp runs over the ground like an ant looking for a mole cricket to parasitise. She paralyses the mole crickets with a sting and lay an egg on it. When the egg hatches, the larva feeds on the cricket.

Between these guys and the funnel-web spiders invading Sydney, I am seriously hankering to move to Australia.

...what? >_>

Philosophy of Mind: Take One

Although I have a degree in philosophy, all of my philosophical work to this point has focused on the areas of philosophy that seem, you know, useful (i.e. logic, moral and political philosophy, the philosophy of science, and the philosophy of religion). I have avoided classes in epistemology and metaphysics because frankly, I can't see the point. Sure, we could all be confused little monads bumbling around knocking into each other. On the other hand, there is important shit to think about, like our moral obligations to the starving children in Africa. (I'm willing to be convinced that fields like metaphysics and epistemology are also important...I just haven't seen it yet.)

Which leads me to my Philosophy of Mind class. I'm writing this post before I have any substantial experience in this field for a reason. I want to record my preconceptions about the class and the study, and then compare these thoughts to what I think at the end of this semester. Initially, I think it's bullshit. The first question the professor asked us when we walked in was, "Why study philosophy of mind? Why not just work in cognitive science?" My unstated response was, "Good fucking point. I don't know." Other people in the class, clearly assuming that there is a point to studying the philosophy of mind, argued that this field can provide us with answers that cognitive science can't. The responses I remember are that cognitive science is too mechanical and that it is inherently based in rationality. Well...DUH. I would certainly hope so. If the philosophy of mind can only provide us with irrational, non-mechanical answers (whatever those are), then frankly, it's as much bullshit as I think it is. I can't imagine learning anything useful about the mind (which I believe can be reduced to mere physical processes in the brain) sitting around and talking with a group of people who have never performed any clinical research in psychology or neurology. I just can't.

That's where I stand now; I'll keep recording my thoughts until the end of the semester, and then look back and compare.

Now Blogging at Rational Alchemy

Looking back through my archive, I'm surprised to find that I have never linked to the Rational Alchemy website (and a little bit embarrassed, because my boyfriend produces the Rational Alchemy podcast and blog). Rational Alchemy is a weekly radio show/podcast about various topics in skepticism, ranging from alternative medicine to UFO sightings. You can hear the show live on Saturdays at 11:00pm MST at the KRFC website, or download the podcast from iTunes.

I've been on the show a few times, but my radio presence is awkward at best. Brian (my boyfriend) recently offered to add me to the author list on the blog, and I'm jumping at the chance to contribute to this cool project without having to stutter on the air. I will still be maintaining this blog independently, so there won't be any overlapping content. Head over to the site, add the blog to your RSS feed, and tune in on Saturday evenings for fun skeptical conversation!

Insect of the Week: Children's Stick Insect

This female Children's Stick Insect (Tropidoderus childrenii) was found in an outdoor swimming pool in Sydney, Australia. Oz Animals has the following description:

Children’s Stick Insect is a medium sized stick insect. Females are larger and bulkier than males, and usually green, but can also be pinkish or cream. The wings are yellowish with bright patches of yellow and blue at the base. Males are slender and light reddish brown. Both males and both the males and females have two pairs of wings. Males are strong fliers, but females are too bulky to fly well. They rely on camouflage to avoid predators. When threatened, Children’s Stick Insect will spread its wings showing the yellow and blue markings. Nymphs have a yellow stripe running along the length of the body. When at rest, the nymphs will align themselves on the leaf so yellow stripe aligns with the leaf midvein.

Isn't she beautiful?

Missing the Point

I just ran across the Index to Creationist Claims, a website which archives all of the main arguments made by creationists, as well as the standard rebuttals to those arguments. Apparently this archive is also now available as an iPhone and Blackberry app, so you can rebut any creationist claim from the comfort of wherever-you-happen-to-be. You know what? This website and application seriously annoy me. I would go so far as to say that they offend me. (Hey, look, I'm disagreeing with PZ. I have a personality!) The skeptic's movement should be promoting critical thinking and independent research. We need to teach people how to think and argue, not what to think and argue. If any clown can scroll to the appropriate claim and read off a stock answer, that's missing the whole point. That's not skepticism. That's mindlessly rehearsing someone else's argument--exactly what the creationists themselves do. If you can't rebut a creationist argument, get your ass on a computer and read all the source material (for both sides) for yourself. Thorougly. And while you're reading, don't just look for convincing bits of information to throw back at your opponent: criticize and pick through it until you've found the most defensible position you possibly can--even if it's not the one you want. Remember: true skepticism admits no dogma. Skeptics must be willing to change their minds if presented with better information. Furthermore, you don't have to defeat every creationist claim in order to have a valid position. I can admit that pain and suffering are compatible with an all-loving, all-powerful god without admitting that such a god exists. I can even admit that such a god exists without admitting that we should worship him/her/it! Argument should have nuance. You don't have to agree with every mainstream atheist (hell, they don't even all agree with each other). Find your own position, and keep questioning it. That's the only way a skeptic can really embrace all the values the skeptic's movement promotes. Nothing is sacred, not even atheism.

Spring Schedule

I'm now entering my ninth semester in college--and strangely, I still enjoy school. I have a handful of fun classes lined up this semester:

PHIL 666 Science and Ethics (Apparently the call number is deliberate--this should be fun!)
PHIL 375 Science and Religion
PHIL 350 Social and Political Philosophy (This will mark the fourth class I've had with that exact same title...)
PHIL 438 Philosophy of Mind (I have a degree in Philosophy, and I've never taken a Philosophy of Mind class. How did that happen? I swear to God, if I have to read Descartes one more goddamn time, I'll just kill myself. Straight up.)
MATH 366 Abstract Algebra (I don't even know what this class is about. Heh.)

Classes start the 19th! W00t!

What Do You Do...

...when your hero follows you on Twitter? Some of you may know that I have an undying love for The Bloggess, a celebrity humor blogger who happens to be the funniest fucking person on the face of the planet. She has a sex column and an advice column in addition to her main blog, and holy crap, the woman can poop humor. I shit you not. So you can understand why I almost had a heart attack when I found this in my inbox this morning:



FLAIL FLAIL FLAIL. This is either awesome, or the worst thing ever. Probably the latter. She'll realize what a humorless dumbass I am, stop following me, and then I'll want to kill myself because I was rejected by The Bloggess. FML.

(But seriously, y'all, The Bloggess is following me. Yaaaaah.)

Link Dump

Because I'm too lazy to finish the follow-up post to this post, I'm just throwing some interesting links up for your entertainment and enlightenment.

Monkey porn! Scientific American reports that macaque monkeys will sacrifice juice rewards in order to look at lady monkey bottoms. Smart monkeys.
12-year-old martyrs get virgins too. Wait, what? Seriously? (Via The Friendly Atheist)
Gender gap in math ability. All evidence says it's social, where it exists at all. Who would have guessed? (Thanks, Kaity!)
Beyond the X and Y chromosomes. Scientists find a single gene that is responsible for the growth of secondary sex characteristics. This discovery may revolutionize sex-reassignment therapy.

Happy Thursday!

Introducing: Insect of the Week

I've long thought that I should, like many other bloggers, have a themed weekly post. The topic of such a post has escaped me until just moments ago when inspiration thwacked me over the skull and demanded I do the obvious. Oh, right. Bugs. Buuuuuugs. Few things make me squeal with girlish delight, but small monsters with many legs and mean-looking mandibles definitely do. (What? What? Some people juggle geese!)

So without further ado, I present this week's Insect of the Week. (And although I'm calling it Insect of the Week, I'll probably throw in the occasional non-insect arthropod, because, as my boyfriend says, "They're all pretty much just bugs". And bugs are awesome.)


Today's insect comes to us from my friend Emma. She took this picture in early July 2008, in the Vietnam city Ho Chi Minh. After scratching my head and consulting my notes from my last entomology class, I tentatively identified it as a beetle from the family Cerambycidae (long-horn beetle). Knowing my identification skills are still woefully inadequate, I also sent it to What's That Bug, a phenomenally geeky website that identified this beetle to species in less than a day. It is indeed a cerambycid (go me!): Pachyteria dimidiata, the Mimusop Stem Borer. Karl from What's That Bug said the following:

This looks like Pachyteria dimidiata (Cerambycinae: Callichromatini), found throughout tropical and sub-tropical Asia from Iran to Borneo. In Thailand it is considered a wood boring pest on fruit and ornamental trees, particularly the Iron Wood Tree (Mimusops elengi); in fact the common name there appears to be the Mimusop Stem Borer. You can find another photo of this beetle (also from Vietnam) on WTB at: http://www.whatsthatbug.com/2009/08/01/longicorn-from-viet-nam-pachyteria-dimidiata/

Thanks, Karl and Emma!

'Whorish Face': WBC parodies Lady Gaga

I can't help it. I laughed my ass off at this ridiculous and off-key parody of Lady Gaga's "Poker Face", performed by the goofball members of the Westboro Baptist Church. Lady "Gay-gay" apparently approves of homosexuality, so you can guess why the WBC hates her. She's also a whore because, you know, she dances the sexy dance.

@LadyGaga "Poker Face" parody by WBC is done! Lyrics: http://tiny.cc/LGL2 Music: sound bite

As far as I can tell, these are the lyrics (I asked @meganphelps for a transcript on Twitter, but I don't think I'll get one):

Verse 1:
Let's go!
You want to strut like you're unique but baby please
Monster Lady "Gay-gay", show your teeth, this is all me
(God hates you!)
Fake love substitution is your game, you're just a fraud
But any half-wit sees your hate for fans and for your God

Chorus:
(Oh, oh oh oh oh. Oh oh oh oh oh oh.)
You pissed off God, you'll see what He's got
(Oh, oh oh oh oh. Oh oh oh oh oh oh.)
You pissed off God, you'll see what He's got

You ain't got, you ain't got, no you ain't got no poker face
(Show your filth to everybody!)
You just got, you just got, yeah you just got your whorish face
(Show your filth to everybody!)
N-n-nuh poker face, n-nuh poker face.

Verse 2:
You want to lie to them, in hell you will all be
"A little fire is so fun when you're with me"
(God hates you!)
Russian roulette is what you're playing, silly clod
But every chamber's loaded when you're playing with your God

Verse 3:
You can't tell them that you love them
You despise them and you're bluffin'
You got nothin' so you're lyin'
You're just hatin' on the truth

Just like a freak out playin' dress up
So your costumes, they can't help you
I've got promises, promises
Your destruction's so marvelous

I personally like it. It's like those nature tapes that record hyenas in their natural habitat. Only these are like, autistic hyenas. On crack.

Obama Appoints Transgender Employee

Although Obama has been distressingly lax when it comes to LGBT awareness and advancement, I was heartened to hear that he recently appointed Amanda Simpson as Senior Technical Adviser to the Department of Commerce. Simpson, a transgender woman from Tuscon, currently serves on the Board of Directors for the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE). She also holds degrees in Physics, Engineering, and Business Administration. Simpson may be the first ever transgender presidential appointee and was recognized by the YWCA as one of their "Women on the Move". She's obviously very qualified for this post, and I'm excited to see Obama take a more active role in promoting equal opportunities for gay and transgender people. Let's hope there's more to come!

A Brief Discussion on Speciesism

For those who don't know and can't guess, speciesism is the practice of assigning greater value to members of one's own species based on morally irrelevant differences. Someone who extends full moral consideration to every member of their own species, regardless of ability or handicap, and denies the same considerations to any other species is a speciesist. Just as racists or sexists draw the boundary of superiority exactly parallel to their own race or sex, speciesists claim (consciously or not) that every human* has rights no other animal does, simply by virtue of being human.

I've noticed that a lot of people seem to giggle or look smug when I accuse them of being a speciesist. (And I do this quite often, because most people are speciesists.) They think I'm kidding, or being a bit silly. Or even that I'm being outrageous, because racism and sexism are nothing like speciesism and it's offensive to human dignity to suggest they are. I disagree. In fact, alarm bells should be ringing in your head right now. It was once thought silly to believe that all humans deserve equal consideration, even *gasp* women. When Mary Wollstonecraft (an 18th century feminist philosopher) published her Vindication of the Rights of Women, a satirical work titled Vindication of the Rights of Brutes was anonymously published soon thereafter. The author tried to show that all of Wollstonecraft's arguments could apply to animals as well, and since it's manifestly absurd to think that animals have rights, it's just as silly to think that women have rights.

Fortunately, we know better now. But that doesn't mean that we've identified and trashed all of our old biases. We should be the most careful of bias that is so embedded in our collective psyche that the majority of us won't even admit the possibility that it's there. Hence, speciesism. Notice that this isn't a full defense of animal rights, it's an appeal to think: after very careful consideration, you may try to argue that speciesism doesn't exist, or that it's morally acceptable (although I seriously doubt you'll come to this conclusion). Fine. Talk to me then. In the meantime, recognize the danger inherent in discarding the interests of other sentient beings out of hand.

For a thorough and eye-opening discussion of speciesism, read Peter Singer's Animal Liberation.

*The term assumes certain mental capacities for considering the interests of other species; thus, only humans can be speciesists.