Paris, Je Vous Aimez!




Let’s meme for the win…


Amy Cools Get Out of My Head!


Image from Ordinary Philosophy


What a great, great article. It’s a wonderful account of what one person gained by shedding religion. I saw so much of my own experiences and thoughts in this article that I thought I’d share it. She is slightly kinder than I am about the evolution of religion, and harsher on her take of what Dawkins and Harris are saying about religion, but I think that is the only part of the article that even remotely parts ways with my own thought.

Also, poke around the site Ordinary Philosophy for a bit. What a wonderful site it is! Here’s what it’s all about:

Why Ordinary Philosophy?


‘Ordinary’ in ‘Ordinary Philosophy’ means: philosophy is not, as it’s often conceived, strictly an arcane subject, pursued only behind the walls of academia and by Phd’s.
It’s about seeking answers to the ‘big questions’ we ask ourselves all the time, which is where the ‘Philosophy’ comes in: ‘What is a meaningful life, and how can I make mine so?’ ‘What’s the right thing to do?’ ‘What’s the truth of the matter, what does truth mean anyway, and how do I know when I know it?’ ‘What do I have the right to do, and what does it mean to have rights?’ ‘How did reality come to be as it is?’, and so on.
In other words, philosophy is an ordinary activity: it’s something we do all the time. It’s done by ordinary people, meaning it’s done by people of all education levels, backgrounds, and professions. It’s applicable to ordinary life, meaning it’s about solving problems that every person encounters in the quest to pursue a good, happy, and meaningful one.


About Amy

Amy Cools has been wondering about how the universe works, and asking questions about it, since she used to pester her dad with relentless ‘why’s, who’s, and how’s?’ as a little girl. An avid reader and introvert, Amy nevertheless loves to engage with people and share her enthusiasm for inquiry and exploration into the ‘big questions’ as well as matters of day-to-day life and personal experience. Amy holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Philosophy, with an emphasis on Applied Ethics and Law, from Sacramento State University, California. She’s an avid hiker and quilter, loves traveling, mystery stories, and music, and thinks coffee, ale, chocolate, cheese, and a British breakfast are among the most delightful things the world has to offer.

At its best, this is what I strive for on my blog, but it appears that Amy Cools has already done it, and done it better!

Gay Marriage: A Welcome Mess

In the New York Times today there is an article how gay marriages are causing some clergy to opt-out of official state licensing of marriages. Good riddance.

Gay marriage as a singular issue isn’t a big deal to me. It’s been settled in my mind a long, long time ago: of course gays should get married if they want to. It was never even a moral dilemma that I had to struggle with, there was no moment in time when I had to come to that conclusion, it’s been a no-brainer for me from day one. But then, I’m not religious and I don’t revere a holy book that says the following (taken from King James because that’s what I have handy, and for extra dramatic effect of Elizabethan/Jacobean delivery):

First a lovely scene depicting the sexual wickedness of Sodom

Genesis 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

I didn’t continue with the verses directly following this where Lot offered up his virgin daughters to be raped by the men in streets. That’s a story for another day — make sure you bring the children for that story time! But back to the wickedness of gay sex, let’s bookend this lovely Genesis story with something from the New Testament, the much more reasonable Testament:

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

And if destroying a couple cities in no small part due to gay sex wasn’t a big enough hint that God doesn’t like homosexuality, it is spelled out clearly here:

Leviticus 18:22 Thou Shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

And repeated here in case you missed it, but now of course in case you didn’t get the hint about destroying the cities and clearly stating that homosexuality is an abomination, the penalty is clearly stated in this lovely verse (hint: death):

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


Anyway, there are more: there are a few awful passages about it in Romans and elsewhere. But even though it’s fun to quote nasty Bible passages, I bring them up to show that Christians have to come to terms with this sort of thing if they also want to be socially relevant in an age that has long passed up the morality and values contained within scripture.

I say: Christians stick to your guns. Hold onto the Bible as the inerrant word of God and you can continue to marginalize yourselves out of existence in a generation or two. I actually agree with the ministers in this article, they shouldn’t be officiating in any sort of state capacity. Allowing religion to be mixed up with the social contract of marriage all these years is past due for correction. Religious people can continue to have their religious ceremonies and more proper secular values will continue to march forward to include rights for everyone. Let’s correct the mistake of letting religion get involved with the state in the first place. Shame on us for waiting for the issue of gay marriage to right the wrong of churches getting up in our marriage business.

Now, let’s talk about that tax exemption thing while we’re at it…





Right/Left Politics Does Not Make Sense

Binary thinking about social, political, and economic issues is such a weird concept to me. I’m continually amazed that people have fallen into this lazy right/left trap. But the American political system which is held hostage by the binary thought of left/right, Democrat/Republican and the politicians that benefit from this thinking would have it no other way.

Social “scientific”* studies about the left/right brain are ubiquitous and commentary from both sides are quick to jump to conclusions about the results. It is unfortunate that social sciences would fall for this binary thinking and actually believe they can study complex social thought (let alone the brain), within this binary framework (meta false dichotomy?).

But perhaps there’s hope that people can drag themselves out of this type of thinking and start realizing that individuals and their place along some faux spectrum is a lot more complex and three-dimensional than anyone gives credit for. Here is an op-ed piece in the NY times that talks about a study that shows (surprise!) that our thinking doesn’t fit nicely into the political boxes that society in general, and political hacks specifically, would like to place us in. The fact that this should be surprising to anyone, especially social scientists, is, well, SURPRISING!

I don’t want to be placed in some box, and thinking should be about right and wrong, not right and left (thanks Anonymous for what I’m hoping will be a political catch phrase in 2016). I’m always surprised people are so willing to throw in with one side or the other, especially when issues are compounded into one left/right, liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican platform. No thanks, I’ll try and use evidence and reason and take things issue by issue.

*I’m fairly harsh on Sociology and other social “sciences” (I can’t help it, I have to put it in scare quotes!), but done well, they do have value and I always appreciate strong scientific methodology to any field like this. I don’t believe they rise to the level to get to be called big “S” Science, but fields like history, sociology, economics, et. al. I believe are done best when they are done using scientific methodologies. But error bars when coming to any “conclusions” should be very wide, and ideas stemming from these fields should be cautiously presented with the realization that results are always open to much speculation and interpretation. A good policy for all sciences, but especially social sciences.

Leaving Christianity for Atheism


Ryan Bell. Image borrowed from Friendly Atheist


There has been a lot of commentary on Pastor Ryan Bell, the minister whose full journey from Christian Pastor to Atheist (apparently – I’d put him in the pledge phase), was chronicled in his year-long decision to live as an atheist. At the end of this year, he has left Christianity and has come to think that atheism is probably the more proper stance. This story isn’t really remarkable, in and of itself, people trade “sides” in both directions all the time. Even life-long atheist Antony Flew remarkably went theist at the end of his life/career and conversions/de-conversions have been used as a cudgel from both sides. So Ryan Bell’s story isn’t remarkable in that respect and as an atheist I don’t take stories like this to hold them up as any sort of proof of atheism, or even support of it. I think the facts stand for themselves. But when stories like this reach the main stream culture, it’s interesting to watch them for the purpose of gauging where the culture’s response lies.

It could be wishful thinking on my part, but I feel like Christianity in the U.S. is on their heels somewhat in the battle to retain their dominance in American culture. I think the internet has a lot to do with it. And I also believe that — much to the chagrin of their Christian enemies and accommodationist critics — people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens put a large dent in Christian cultural impact in the last decade.

I personally left Christianity simply because I believe that Christianity in no sense of the word is “true”. But Christians who see guys like Ryan Bell leaving Christianity, cannot accept the answer that he simply thinks it’s wrong without entertaining the premise. So instead of taking guys like me and other ex-Christians at their word, they spend many hand-wringing hours trying to explain this exodus for different reasons.

Don’t get me wrong, there are many Christians out there honestly looking inward at Christianity to try and see what they can do better to retain Christians. But they miss the point also: it doesn’t matter how much you try and get hip, or re-interpret scripture, or reduce Christian hypocrisy, or soften doctrine to accommodate modern sensibilities, you cannot keep Christians who simply don’t believe it’s true. Truth is and always will be the Achilles heel to religion. There are atheists that have admitted they want Christianity to be true (I am certainly not one of those), but in the end, Christianity has nothing if people aren’t buying the premises in which the religion was built on. The only move – which many modern apologists and theologians are doing – is to change what Christianity means, and give would-be apostates a life line built on mythology. But liberal theology that mythologizes the core of the Christian message is just the last stop on the fast train to non-belief. Sure, people can get off on that last stop, but I highly doubt they can build a city there.

People want truth and whether it comes in the big “T” religious version of the little “t” agnostic/atheist version that’s where they are going to build their lives, so building a culture around apologetics and theology is a non-starter as far as I’m concerned. Theology and apologetics are inherently reactive to the internal and external criticisms of religious doctrine. I think Christianity has been effectively adaptive to date about indoctrinating the sheep and mollifying the would-be intellectual heretics. But critical mass of science, reason, technology, and information age is here and if Christianity continues to fight from their heels, they will lose the privilege of influence they have comfortably held in this country since its inception. 

The reaction to Ryan Bell’s exit from Christianity has been interesting to watch. Christians are being downright fierce about his apostasy. The more thoughtful Christians will read about Ryan Bell and look to change the church from within. But at the end of the day Christianity isn’t true and that’s a tough fort to defend. But humans love their narrative and something Ryan Bell said in an interview struck me as a sliver of light for Christianity:

I’d just say that the existence of God seems like an extra layer of complexity that isn’t necessary. The world makes more sense to me as it is, without postulating a divine being who is somehow in charge of things.

Ah, good ol’ Occam’s Razor. Bell also said it was “provisional” where he is at in his thought, so that tells me if he is able to come up with a better Christian narrative than the one he has now then he can be got. More likely though, the word “provisional” is just a responsible word that I think everyone should ultimately be using about their current thought. I hope tomorrow, some belief I hold today is absolutely demolished. That means I’ve grown. Hopefully this hypothetical new belief also is more closely aligned with truth, but even if it isn’t, the value I hold to be open to new ideas means we as individuals have growth potential.

So, on and on we go, a little push here, a little tug there. But the needle has been moving slowly and steadily in America in the recent past away from Christianity and toward non-belief. The reason why is there’s “no there-there” when it comes to Christianity, but it will continue to be interesting the tactics which are used by the believers to try and keep their flock together. Those Christians who think they will be successful because they have Truth on their side are sadly mistaken. I used to think like that. I thought that Christianity was self-evidently true and something that was true could easily withstand any scrutiny. Truth accepted my challenge and Christianity folded without a fight. If we change the value of the Christian culture to believe in the pursuit of truth and knowledge, then Christianity as a major influence in this country will similarly fold. I believe the information age is pushing critical mass in that direction faster than could be hoped for in past generations. I look forward to the day when faith is no longer a virtue and social, cultural, political, and governmental policy is completely discussed, written, and enacted purely by good reasoning.



The Awful Morals of Atheists

My wonderful, loving, (atheist) wife today:

1) submitted an application for a rescue dog (on top of the 4 she has given a loving home to in the recent past)

2) paid money to the animal shelter so some more of the animals’ expenses could be waived to facilitate them going to a new home. This was done anonymously (except I suppose I’m blowing that now).

3) turned in a woman’s wallet with a lot of cash, credit cards and personal belongings,  (yes, everything is still in there) that she found in the parking lot.

4) objected to me telling you all about all this because she’s gracious and humble.

Just another typical day in the life of a disgusting amoral atheist.

Now enjoy your two minutes of hate. It’s actually over 8 minutes but Christians need more time for hate than they did in Orwell’s dystopia.

I would feel bad leaving you with that nonsense, so here is some reason to cleanse your palate.

2014 Book Countdown

Okay, so this isn’t actually a countdown, but I woke up and realized that it was New Year’s Eve (who knew?) and that’s what happens on NYE. We are creatures who can reflect on the past, (hopefully) live in the present, and anticipate the future. That’s no small feat for a species. Somehow these discrete moments in time, make up the continuity we call life. I dig NYE for these reasons: it can be a thoughtful reflection of the year which has just passed, it’s a day to have a ton of fun in the present, and you can start fresh for the future — truly a holiday in three dimensions.

So in the spirit of NYE I thought I’d reflect on one of my favorite things in life: books. I try to read about one a week, and if I can finish one off today, I will have reached that goal this year just under the wire. A bit off from the 64 last year but it’s been a busy year in other ways, so hey, 52 books is still respectable. Here are some thoughts on some of the books I’ve read this year in no particular order of books nor thought.

Away With All Gods! by Bob Avakian. Bob Avakian is a firebrand communist atheist. I love reading atheist books of all kinds. They are fun for me and they read like candy. Bob is a little out there for me, I think he comes from a completely different mold. I am really apolitical in that I really don’t have a lot of faith in political structures and the people who think they know what is best for society. I think Bob is a true believer in this respect, and I say “good on you Bob” but I remain unconvinced that I need Bob’s Brave New World. An important voice nonetheless, and I appreciate that there are guys like him saying what he says.

Unconquered: The Saga of Cousins Jerry Lee Lewis, Jimmy Swaggart, and Mickey Gilley by J.D. Davis. I read a healthy amount of popular music books, especially bios, for fun and for my work. This book was a definite read for me because I was going to be playing onstage with Mickey Gilley and I wanted to do my homework. Guys from this time are heroes for my Pop’s generation of folk who grew up in the south with Bible revivals and Rock and Roll. Seems like you had to choose one or the other, but often they embodied the same person, and what then? This theme is prevalent throughout this book. I’m glad I can understand the vibe of that era having come around in the 70’s, but I’m sure more glad that I’m now in an information age and realize that “simpler times” is a fairy tale. It’s a decent read if you really like the subject matter.

Cogwheels of the Mind: The Story of Venn Diagrams by A.W.F. Edwards. I love these little niche books about the history of math and/or science. This one was a quick little read and is equal parts history and explanation of Venn Diagrams. I pick up books like this when I can find them and read them on a whim. I usually forget most of what I read but hopefully the process has given me a fuller and richer picture of science and math. My early education in science and math is woefully lacking, half due to my own resistance to it and half due to the miserable education system and their lack of emphasis on it. Well, I’ll chop the responsibility in 1/3’s and add that my religious upbringing if not outright had a disdain for science, certainly did not value it or in any way encourage it. So, having missed the boat early in life, I try and do what I can as an adult to compensate by reading the history and philosophy behind math and science. I think it’s the next best thing to actually being able to do math and/or science.

God, No! by Penn Jillette. This is a Penn Jillette bio. By the title (and cover) you’d think it was going to be all about his atheism. While there is a healthy dose of that, it’s just as much about Penn telling stories about his life. He definitely has had an interesting life, so if you want an atheistic pop culture beach book, this one is fun.

Fascinating Hieroglyphics by Christian Jacq. The book is a nice primer on hieroglyphics as it gives you the archaeological history and also quite a bit of detail about the deciphering and language behind them. Not sure I need to dig any deeper into the subject (honestly no archeological pun intended) but glad I read this little intro.

Godless by Ann Coulter. Ann says close to nothing I agree with. But it’s not nothing. I truly think there has to be some overlap in thought with everyone, although with some people you have to go pretty deep to find a sliver of agreement. Well, I didn’t find it in this book with Ann, but I’m sure at some point in print or on TV she has said something I agree with. Amazingly, Ann spends the last 4-5 chapters of this book bashing evolution. It’s not amazing to me she bashes evolution, it’s the sheer volume of her book she dedicated to it. She definitely did her homework, I was surprised and impressed about how much she had to say about it. She obviously studied all the wrong sources on evolution and went to the best deniers, so it’s highly flawed homework, but homework nonetheless. You can definitely see the fingerprints of the Discovery Institute and other anti-evolution organizations all over. Give her partial credit for at least speaking like the William Dembskis and Michael Behes of the world and not the Ken Hams and Ray Comforts (although there was a bit of that too).

People like Ann fascinate me because they are so smart and yet they get it so wrong. This is way more destructive than the obvious idiots who are unabashedly and overtly wrong. Someone who dismisses Ann Coulter is missing the point and does so at the peril of their cause. She’s smart, she’s funny, she’s attractive, she’s articulate, she’s sharp, and most importantly she’s rhetorically effective. Ann Coulter has a lot going for her, and I don’t think her enemies get the appeal and until they do, she will win in the public arena. I obviously read her as someone who agrees with nothing she says (almost nothing, I think, still looking for agreement), but atheists need to read Ann with the empathy of someone who believes in what Ann stands for them to understand her appeal. Only then will they find ways to combat her on her playing field. I think we often make the mistake that being right is going to be enough to win over the public. This couldn’t be further from the case. People like Ann Coulter not only need to be refuted, but their rhetoric and style need to be studied and the psychology of her audience needs to be diagnosed (I think someone like Chris Mooney tries to make this point, but ultimately fails in both making the point, and relying too heavily on crappy social science). This book and others like it are fascinating to me. Ann’s a fascinating person and simple dismissal of people like her are done to the peril of scientists and atheists, or any other anti-right-wing advocacy.

Close Encounters With the Religious Right by Robert Boston. This book was out I think during the turn of the millennium, so it’s a bit dated (ancient for political writing). But I like to read books like this every once in a while as primary historical sources. What and who were secularists battling in the 90’s. Were the issues the same? Were they framed the same? Are the players the same a decade ago? A generation ago? In this book Robert Boston often went into the belly of the beast and would go to religious right conferences and “infiltrate” religious right advocate’s space. As I was saying before about Ann Coulter, you need to know your enemy and guys like Robert Boston are smart for trying to understand first hand what makes these right-wing nutjobs tick.

Hitler, Homer, Bible, Christ by Richard Carrier. This is a series of essays by Richard Carrier spanning his career as an historian. As with most writings by historians, it gets into much minutiae on narrow subjects which is yeoman’s work and also very necessary work, but not always interesting unless you are really, really into the subject matter. Which I am, because Carrier often focuses on the finer points of biblical history. I read his historiographical piece last year entitled Proving History which I also enjoyed. Richard is an advocate of using Baysian modelling to assess historical claims and write responsible, quality history. I agree with Carrier, that logical methodology, even scientific methodology, should be employed when doing history, but I think he has too much faith that there can be a consensus on prior probabilities when using Baysian methodology for history. I support the effort and I think Bayes modelling keeps historians in line and will give a better account of where the disagreements are, but as with everything, skeptical philosophy will always win and you certainly can’t “prove” history more than you can “prove” anything else. I think perhaps the “proving” in the title of Carrier’s is more logical “proof” than actual proof, but it’s still a fantastical title. I applaud the effort though.

Religion on Trial by Chester Dolan. Ah, good ol’ Chester Dolan. This book appears to be a labor of love for Chester (I have no idea who Chester Dolan is). It is a long, rambling, philosophically meager atheistic screed. Which makes it a whole lot of fun! Chester has taken on almost every atheistic subject with a million different chapter headings in this book. I like Chester, I just don’t give him a whole lot of credit for being an original thinker. The book uses an impressive amount of great quotes by great atheistic and secular speakers/writers, but I’m afraid Chester’s commentary surrounding the quotes isn’t that great. I still loved it though and I applaud you Chester Dolan for really putting it out there on this one. I think the book was even self-published. Good on you Chester.

Has Science Found God? by Victor Stenger. Spoiler Alert: Victor Stenger says, “no”. Quite the opposite. Victor, I believe rightly, shows that science in fact allows us to negate all human concepts of god with a high degree of confidence and certainty. The god of the bible is out, all popular notions of god are out, historical gods have been out, the only ‘god’ left is the philosophically possible god, and who the hell cares?

Magnificent Vibration by Rick Springfield. Yes, that Rick Springfield. As an author, Rick is a great musician. I kid. I’m actually impressed with his writing, he’s fun and interesting. I wouldn’t have selected this book to read, but a good friend of mine is a Rick Springfield fanatic (stalker?) and the copy I read is even inscribed to me personally, so I’m very appreciative. The book is a little woo and (spoiler alert!), Rick’s ego is so large that the future of humanity literally depends on whether or not the protagonist (c’mon Rick, we know it’s you) has sex with a nun or not. I know, pretty silly, but I’m not above trash. Far from it. Most people feel a book given as a gift means an obligation to read it. I do too, except instead of a burden, I enjoy it. If a friend gives me a book I’ll read it. Even if I hate the book (I rarely hate a book) it is always a great topic of conversation, is something you will always have in common with your friend, and it will definitely give you insight into what someone else enjoys. I try and have as many personal “book clubs” as I can with other people. This is the main reason I share my bibliography with everyone on this blog, and that’s why I’m writing these year-end book reviews. I hope someday I can have a world-wide book club with people I share interests with.

Skeptics Answered by James Kennedy. This book is trash. It’s written to be some sort of answer guide to college-aged kids as they “go out in the world”. Christians are so scared and paranoid about their little brain-washed automatons going out and getting real knowledge after they leave home that they write and hand out awful, awful books like this one. Look, they have good reason to be paranoid, they have nothing but faith and indoctrination to hold things together. It saddens me that people live and think like this. It’s a horrible way to think and I’m intimately familiar with the process as most of my family and extended family think like this. Reading a book like this makes my heart break for all the 18 year olds this book has been given to and how miserable their lives seem to me from the other side. I’ve been on both sides of this religious equation and it’s much more sympathetic and empathetic from the non-religious side. Oh yeah, and also Christianity in no sense of the word is “true”.

Rhymes for the Irreverent by Yip Harburg. What a great little find this was. A wonderful collection of Yip Harburg’s irreverent poems. What a unique voice (and mind) this guy had. Always clever, always witty, and always presented with a smile for the world. What a great natural character he was. Life is serious, issues are serious, the world is serious, living should not be.

Realism and Nominalism Revisited by Henry Veatch. This is an annual series of books put out by Marquette that puts in print their Aquinas Lecture Series. Some of their lectures are philosophical, most are theological, but even their theological lectures in the series have a philosophical bent to them. I may be naive in thinking that questions of nominalism and realism, are dichotomies of the past, destroyed by the self-realization that we have socially constructed ideas and there is no real ontology because they are reducible to “no-thing”. I despise postmodernism as a model for our universe, but it does have one useful insight that I believe crushes many ontological questions: we just made the shit up. But it is naive for me to say so and that’s why philosophy will always continue to be relevant. In spite of my scientism, philosophy is not only alive, it will be forever relevant. Even if you want to scrap-heap certain philosophical dichotomies like free will/determinism and realism/nominalism, the awareness of the philosophical history I believe is invaluable going forward, making it ever-relevant.

The Reality of the Historical Past by Paul Ricoeur. Another lecture in the Aquinas series. What a great little read, combining two subjects that fascinate me: philosophy and historiography. I believe as an axiom (with a lot of induction to back it up) that science, logic, and reason (philosophy), is the best way to approach most fields of study such as economics, politics, and especially history. I don’t think using such methodology will ever result in an ultimate conclusion, but I believe that a logical, scientifically methodological process is likely to to approximate the closest satisfying analysis. This is especially true for history as I believe history is a subject which is in part empirical, but more parts philosophical. The current perception of history and its lessons also place a great deal of responsibility upon the historian to “get it right”. But that simply isn’t possible, one cannot omit themselves from the process, nor can they physically insert themselves in the past. All the more reason to be cautious with history and have sound philosophical (skeptical) understanding of how you pursue the past. This is another way philosophy must never leave the academic process: it shows us our limitations, and when it comes to historiography there are many, many limitations.

Letters to a Young Contrarian by Christopher Hitchens. This is my second reading of this very quick read. It is one of my favorites and one that I believe I will make its way onto my annual reading list. What’s there to say? It has everything that The Hitch is known for: great writing, eloquence, intestinal fortitude, wit, and some really, really great advice for would-be contrarians. I think many people accused Hitchens of being contrary for its own sake, but that’s a miserable and lazy cop-out for those that didn’t want to engage in his arguments (can you blame them???). Contrarians like Hitchens are contrary because being as sharp, lettered, and thoughtful as Hitchens is, puts him in a very elite minority of people that inherently run in opposition to “common sense”. Not because they crave to be antagonistic (although I believe Hitchens did get a charge out of that), but because the “common” world is a very backward one. Intelligent insight on the world by definition puts one in opposition to a vast majority of the global population. I cannot recommend this book enough. Even if you are not a fan of Hitchens, this is a quick, delightful read.

Mortality by Christopher Hitchens. This book is a collection of essays by The Hitch written after he received his diagnosis of esophageal cancer. Sharp literally to his death, he died as he lived, with brutal honesty and as a writer – always a writer. Like Letters to a Young Contrarian, it’s a quick read. I read those two books back to back in an afternoon and the contrasts are breath-taking. If you have the inclination, please do read these books back to back as bookends of Hitchens’ life in words. The first, so full of piss and vinegar, a rallying cry for freethought, the second shows the same amount of strength, but now the words come from a cancer-stricken, withered body. Strength in mind and words is the common thread of both works, but the inevitable finite context life imposes on us all weighs heavy in Mortality. The man never fails to engage me. Never.

Language and Thought by Noam Chomsky. Yet another great example of why philosophy isn’t going anywhere. We have the complex subject of our language and its relation to thought and to think science is going to answer all the questions we have about mind and consciousness, especially strictly from a quantitative standpoint is naive scientism at its worst – and I count myself in the ranks of engaging in naive scientism! But, what once was simply in the realm of pure philosophy such as Descartes, Hume, and Kant, is now equal parts philosophy, equal parts science and Noam Chomsky straddles that line perfectly. Sorry neurologists, you have no chance of understanding the mind without philosophy, it’s not going to happen. Sorry, philosophers, you better be scientifically literate and on the cutting edge of neurology if you are going to have a chance at synthesizing a coherent philosophy of the mind/brain.

Canterbury Tales by Chaucer. Finally put this one to bed after picking at it for two years. I’m slowly working my way through all the classical literature. This one was entertaining but literature isn’t my strong suit and it definitely is lost on the likes of me why this is brilliant. Seemed like a medieval soap opera to me. I read literature like this and I’m more interested in the purely incidental historical clues it provides about the time in which it was written than I actually am in the literary content. I see a lot of value in my endeavor, I hope to get more savvy with literature, and there is always cultural and historical to be had in my pursuit of classic literature. As far as this one goes: 150 pages probably would have been good for me and Chaucer, but it is rare that I start a book without finishing it – I’m rather compulsive that way – so 700 pages it was.

There were a lot of other books I read that aren’t really worthy of note: I read popular philosophy in the bathroom and I finished a couple this year on 30 Rock and Philosophy and Star Trek and Philosophy. I like to read books about places I visit. I took my annual trip with friends and family to Las Vegas so I read a books on the history of the mob in Vegas, the history of the city itself, the history of the casinos, a couple of travel guides, a history of poker, etc. Same with Cape Cod, we visit my in-laws every year and I’ll pick at Thoreau, or some other author or work explicitly or tangentially related to the east coast. The Selfish Genius about Dawkins I already posted about. I’m also an online bookseller so I read some books about bookselling and the antiquarian side of the book world.

Looking forward to reading in 2015. I’d like to read quite a bit more than the 52 in 2014. I have dozens of books I’ve started, and several shelves of books I keep in my “read soon” docket. It’s always a matter of time rather than desire as to what I choose to read. My library now contains over 3000 volumes and I would read them all in 2015 if time didn’t press. But I have a pretty weighty philosophy of math that I’ve been dying to get to; I’ll re-read Douglas Adams in 2015; It’s been a few years since I revisited Darwin and evolution as a subject; as always there will be atheism; I’m going to read James Joyce Ulysses this year for my literary classic; I’m reading Paul Tillich much to my dismay; I’ll read on Jefferson; I might pick at some enlightenment history and philosophy; and finally there is always science to get through: philosophy, history, and primary source science.

Happy new year everyone! And good reading in 2015!!!





Tori Amos: Total Badass


Tori Amos’ album Little Earthquakes changed my life. There have been wonderful moments in my life where music has done that: I’ve heard something and I knew my life was going to be different after that. Certain albums and artists have marked my life in that way: there’s a  B.C./A.D. situation going on where my life was now relative to the moment I heard something — a seismic shift occurs when something really grabs me musically. In 1992, Little Earthquakes came out and that marks my B.T./A.T. delineation.

Some albums just jump through the speakers and the fact that this album was named for a natural disaster is apropos because Tori is an unbridled force of nature on this album. Tori Amos simply pops on this album whether she’s slamming her piano in raucous chaos in the bridge of “Precious Things” or she whispers a capella — haunting, stripped, naked, and raw as she does in “Me and Gun”. The quietest, most somber moments in the album have equal emotional impact as the highest decibal, highest energy moments: there’s no turning away when listening to this album — it consumes you while you consume it.

This album is a painting, a real genuine work of art. Tori uses every color and tone on the palette; every brush stroke is placed perfectly and purposefully to convey and elicit visceral impact. Very few albums are perfect from first to last track, and it is rare that an album is so well crafted that I have to listen front to back every time, but Little Earthquakes not only captured my full attention — it demanded it. It’s that rare album that isn’t just a collection of songs, but a masterpiece that flows front to back in a narrative. It’s not conceptually built in a narrative like Pink Floyd’s The Wall, which makes it even more interesting that the album can be seen as a whole, more of a mosaic of the artist’s life and thoughts rather than a linear storyline.

This will be the first in a series of posts where I put on the “cans” and do commentary on an album. I invite you to listen with me. I’m a musician by trade, but music is one of those wonderfully universal subjects where anyone can have a valid opinion. I know some non-musicians who love music, sometimes get a kick out of “hearing” what a musician might hear when they are listening to a song, and in that way, I would love to share my thoughts on this album and others.

Keep in mind, I do not in any way think my commentary is some kind of “expert” opinion because I’m a professional musician, it is just another subjective, albeit somewhat studied, opinion. It’s still an opinion, don’t let anyone tell you differently. While there are objective things to look at when it comes to the craft of music, and production, and song construction, at the end of the day, people like what they like, and I think that’s wonderful. I don’t begrudge anyone their taste in art or music and if you’re one of those that think being educated about the subject matter enhances the experience, then great. If you’re one of those who enjoys just listening and keeping the mystery of the art, that’s great too!

So here goes, listen along with me to the album Little Earthquakes and see if you hear what I hear:

Track 1: “Crucify”.

Here’s the music video. It’s not particularly interesting and actually a little silly. I hadn’t seen it before today. Unfortunate. I don’t know if it was for budgetary reasons or not (I certainly hope it wasn’t for artistic reasons!), but they really dropped the ball with an opportunity to make a wonderful mini-film with the rich themes and content in the song. Oh well, this is a musical analysis, not a video analysis. My recommendation is don’t bother with the video, just listen to the great music, I only put it up here in case you don’t actually have the album.

Tori loves to build tension in her songs and her production. She’s very effective at it. This song starts off with the first verse: sparse with her just her vocals, minimal instrumentation and just a percussive hi-hat and kick drum. Then a beautiful pre-chorus comes in and we hear for the first time her virtuosic piano arpeggiating as everything drops out but the kick drum. This pre-chorus is so beautiful and melodic (“I’ve been looking for a savior…”), it could serve as a chorus. There is nothing superfluous about her writing – the song is rich from front to back.

I don’t really consider Tori a “pop” artist, but she has the natural ability to make everything a “hook”. This song has a half dozen of them. By the time we get to the actual chorus (in two parts – again hook after hook) and the band fully kicks in, the minimalism of the verse and pre-chorus makes the full production of the chorus seem very large: background vocals, added percussion. The chorus as I mentioned is in two parts: part one (“why do we crucify ourselves) and part two (my heart’s sick of being in chains). Again, this is a testament to the richness of this song that there’s an A and a B chorus and both with distinct identities and focus, and yet they flow perfectly.

The chorus in this song is where we get the first indication that Tori Amos is really something special with her lyrical phrasing. There are many unique themes to Tori’s musical presentation and one of them that stands out to me is how she places notes and syllables vocally. Tori has her own vocal fingerprint where this is concerned, I’ve never heard an artist phrase like she does and that really separates the great ones. Quincy Jones said that’s how he could separate the great singers from just the good ones: where they placed their notes and how they phrased their syllables. I couldn’t agree more. I think this is one of the reasons I don’t really dig musicals and some theater singing, because the phrasing is usually stock and that simply isn’t as interesting to me.

Tori takes phrasing to its limits at the end of chorus A when she says “my heart’s sick of being in …” simply sounds like “my heart’s been in…” She “crams” all those syllables in that short segment, both melodically and percussively, which then allows Chorus B (“…chains” the end of the phrase and back end of the chorus) for her to run a wonderful melisma using only a single word that completes the lyric of the chorus. Two distinct and opposite approaches to phrasing separating the “two choruses”.

As great as that phrasing is, it’s probably more impressive in the verses (I will be coming back to the brilliance of her phrasing time and time again in this album). Most songwriters really can’t get too far away from couplets (or another simple rhyme scheme) because of the natural rhythm and phrasing that it inherently provides. It takes a shitload of extra creativity to be able to flow and rhythmically place lyrics that aren’t already contained in a stock, rhythmic pattern. This makes her lyric writing much richer because she can engage in a much more impressive narrative and/or stream of consciousness free flow of ideas. Her lyrics are unbounded by her ability to marry her musical phrasing with the poetry of the words.

Speaking of lyrics, let’s talk about the lyrics for a moment. As I said before, Tori is already more creative than most with her lyrics and phrasing, but she also has that wonderful ability to speak in her own unique voice. There is no fourth wall in her music, she is speaking 1st person and giving it to the listener raw. To what degree the narrative exactly reflects the artist is unimportant, the subject matter is profoundly intimate and delivered as not just window into the artist, but as an experience in a moment. It’s like the listener is not only in the room with Tori during her vignettes, but she is also allowing the listener inside her head, so much so that we don’t often know what’s real and what is created by her mind. The listener gets Tori’s inner narrative which goes well beyond the intimacy of just being an observer.

Let’s look at the first verse:

Every finger in the room is pointing at me

I want to spit in their faces then I get afraid of what that could bring

I got a bowling ball in my stomach I got a desert in my mouth

Figures that my courage would choose to sell out now

These are not the inner thoughts of a psychopath (although they could be!), this is the inner dialogue of anyone who has been uncomfortable in a social situation and feels judged. This sets the scene for the theme of the song: why do we feed each other’s most base inner thoughts? Why do we give each other the arsenal to feed and compound our own insecurities? Our inner self is devilish enough to provide self-loathing, knowing we have our own inner-dialogue to contend with, why would we possibly heap that pressure onto another human being with such overbearing criticism and judgment? Why do we crucify ourselves? Ultimately it’s a self-immolation in our mind, but the matches and fuel are given to us by society, moreover, religious society and its vicious self-loathing constructs.

She is asking this question while weaving in both literal and allegorical Christian allusions in the song. Religion will be a recurring theme for Tori. Specifically the outer, systematized, institutional religious persecution that is inherent in organized religion, resulting in the deeper, inner psychological persecution that results. Judgmental religion is rendered even more nefarious when it can control personal thoughts. Orwell knew about the destructive nature of institutions framing our language and our minds to create the horror of horrors: the institution not just being a part of our most intimate inner thoughts but actually manipulating them and controlling them to the full force of destroying any semblance of self.

With full knowledge that I may be projecting in emphasis of this religious-Orwellian theme, I’m certainly not making it up whole cloth. To some degree she equates religion with negative human emotions, “got enough guilt to start my own religion”. It definitely exists as a theme in Tori’s lyrics, but to what degree she is using religion allegorically to represent a mindfuck as opposed to religion actually being the instrument of mental torture, I leave that to each individual listener. I think in the song “Crucify” it’s a little bit of both: I think she is using religion generally (and the crucifixion story specifically) as the ultimate representation of abhorrent judgment working itself from the outside in. This religious institutional judgment (religious and institutional crucifixion of the masses): which then infects the populace — their fingers pointing in constant judgment (social crucifixion); which in turn leaves the individual no choice but to be in a continual state of self-judgment (self-crucifixion).

So the refrain “why do we crucify ourselves” is rhetorical. The answer is “we shouldn’t” — but we’re stuck. We want to hold on to the spiritual satisfaction we derive from comforting beliefs, but unfortunately we’re stuck with the negative elements that institutionalized religion brings.  No fuzzy feelings without the crushing pressure of judgment. Is there good in religion and/or life that we have to suffer to achieve? Is it obtainable in this life, or are we suffering the misery of this existence, only to get salvation after earthly torture. When does the religious promise of salvation come in to relieve the pain?

The protagonist in the song is looking for a savior (looking for them often in the seediest of situations: “in dirty sheets/streets” yet more condemnation, this time through the lens of religion which says sex is not beautiful, but shameful and disgusting) who will release her from the bad elements of religion (salvation cannot possibly be won through religion and all the nastiness that it entails, can it?). So according to the song, you’re stuck with both, “I gotta have my suffering so I can have my cross” and “you’re just an empty cage girl if you kill the bird”. This last line reversing the quixotic spiritual quest of throwing out the bathwater and keeping the baby.

Back to the music. After the initial chorus (in 3 wonderful stages) the song strips back down to it’s most minimalistic form for the second verse. Again, this is a wonderful technique to build tension in a song: build it up musically, and then cut it immediately at its height for full dramatic effect and start over again. This song is a wonderful example of that and a technique that will be used to great effect throughout the album.

After the second chorus a beautiful, soaring bridge shows another excellent hallmark of a good songwriter: writing another movement to the song, that is different enough to change the dynamic of the song, but flows enough to be seamlessly implemented. There are many things about Tori’s songs that I find epic. I love “epic” in music and usually it comes in the form of long song that takes you in many directions musically and emotionally. Tori writes “epic” songs regardless of length. They are so layered and dense vocally, lyrically, musically, and from a production standpoint, that a tight, little 3 or 4 minute song is worthy of having epic status. Just listen to the drums in this song, they are completely minimalistic, and yet that reverb makes them huge sounding, bombastic and, yes… epic!

The song ends with a musical and lyrical refrain which is a staple in many of Tori’s songs. Again, because of her creativity, she is able to free-form these refrains and keep them from sounding repetitive and they are certainly miles from boring.

Okay, Part II later this week when hopefully you will enjoy the rest of the album with me. This initial listening exercise will be longer than most because I’m laying down a foundation of musical and production concepts so I’m putting in two parts. Besides, I broke my headphones — I told you this shit was powerful! I always recommend studio quality headphones when you’re getting down to serious listening of music. No earbuds or wimpy headphones, you need the real deal. They are worth the investment and make the listening experience a million times better. You’ll shell out a little for them, but they pay for themselves ten times over both in sonic and durable quality. Mine broke because I’m an idiot, not because they crapped out. I’d had mine for 20 years and they would have kept going easily another 20 if I hadn’t just sat on them.

Here’s a relatively inexpensive route to get into quality headphones and I think they sound great.

You can probably pick them up at Amazon or elsewhere for around $100.

To be continued…




Rebecca Watson Leaves the SGU: She’ll Be Missed and Good Riddance

The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe is a weekly podcast dedicated to skepticism, science, and reason. In my nerdy fever dreams SGU would be the #1 ranked show on radio and television (they would have a TV show in my dreams of course) and everyone at SGU would be world-famous and they would be earning super-star dollars. The show is a team of skeptics headed by uber-skeptic, Steven Novella, and they talk about skeptical/scientific topics.

The show reflects the direction I would love to take my own personal “New World Order”: if everyone had just a little more critical thinking, a little more science education, a little more skepticism in their lives, then we could really get down to business and change the world for the better. If most people took on the the attitudes and values of the panel at SGU, then we could turn the tables of this mess we call a world. I often feel like I don’t need to speak: I could simply have a digital archive I carry around with me, and use a Steve Novella quote in lieu of talking, given that 99.5% of what is said by Steven Novella reflects my positions precisely — and he can always say it better than me anyway.

Someday I will write a blog post about the 0.5% difference (see Jamy Ian Swiss, atheism/skepticism, and tents), but of course today I want to talk about the big news that Rebecca Watson, after nine years, is leaving the show. It was announced yesterday on her blog that she was leaving SGU and her final episode as a skeptical “rogue” was posted to the webs.

Putting it mildly, Rebecca has been a polarizing figure in the atheist/skeptical “community”, sometimes simply due to her brand of witty snark, but more often (and with more vitriol) due to her feminist advocacy. She has one of those personalities that usually either endears her to or repulses her from people. This same love/hate relationship she has among the skeptical/atheist community has been warring inside my own head for years. I like to think that my extremes on any specific issue, makes me an amalgamated centrist, but it probably doesn’t work that way. That’s why Rebecca Watson is so fascinating to me as a barometer for my own views: at any given moment, I’m endeared to Rebecca Watson, and repulsed by her — sometimes simultaneously. Does this constitute a net/net ambivalence toward her? I don’t think so. I think that makes her someone who has that really special ability (especially if one strives to be a public figure) to generate reactions in people — both good and bad. Ambivalence and indifference is death to someone who aims to self-promote.

Rebecca has naturally (and purposefully I believe) had that ability to strike just the right note (or wrong note depending on your perspective), at just the right time, to elicit strong reactions from people from all sides. For Rebecca, I imagine this comes as both a gift (notoriety which can be used for self-promotion) and a curse (notoriety from psychopaths). Elevatorgate had so many ripples through the atheist/skeptical community, I do not think its impact can be overstated. Discussion from her video and her comments afterward were largely or tangentially responsible for a schism that is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. I’m not being flippant when I say this is a real talent. Most people seeking to affect change would give multiple appendages and/or organs to have this ability. I would never say there is a single cause for all the controversies, in-fighting, lashes, and backlashes among skeptics, atheists, feminists, freethinkinkers, etc.; but I would say that where there are such controversies, you don’t need 6 degrees of separation to get to Rebecca Watson – probably just a binary system would suffice.

I don’t want to cop-out and not say specifically where the love falls and where the hate falls in my love/hate relationship with Rebecca Watson. First, I want to make it clear that love/hate is just an expression. I don’t know Rebecca and I want to preface this by saying I like Rebecca as far as it goes. I like her as a public figure, I like her on the SGU and — even though she brings out strong reactions of disagreement in me sometimes — I even like her when I “hate” her. So here are my thoughts for what they’re worth:

Rebecca Watson is a feminist. Rebecca Watson is a Skeptic. Feminism is an ideology. Skepticism is a tool for reasoning. I think that these two can inhabit the same person at the same time, but much like Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, depending on how you are looking at a person and their goals and values in any given situation, you can examine either their ideology or their skepticism, but you cannot evaluate ideology and skepticism simultaneously.

This is further complicated because there is no such thing as a universal Platonic ideal of “feminism” or any other ideology. “Feminists” are a group of individuals with individual ideologies loosely coalesced around some nebulous goal concerning women’s rights. For every single “feminist” (I’m using feminism here, but you can insert any ideological position), there is a “feminism” unique to a certain individual that espouses feminist beliefs. In this sense saying “Rebecca Watson has a feminist ideology” is saying something, in that it puts her in a set of people that would advocate for women’s rights, but it still says almost nothing about where she falls on the very broad (if you think I mean that as a pun, shame on you!) spectrum of feminist ideology. In this sense, when we speak of Rebecca’s “feminist ideology” we really can only speak of Rebecca Watson Feminist as a set of one and draw no further conclusions about what her feminist advocacy entails.

I say all this to make two points:

1) A person’s ideology can (should) be instructed by their skepticism, but belief is antithetical to skepticism. We need beliefs to “put on pants” and go out and live our lives, and sometimes our beliefs bring us to adopt certain ideologies. At this point, we are hopefully still using skepticism to continually inform our beliefs, but the action of advocacy necessitates leaving a skeptical mindset. Ideology involves positive momentum, and skepticism by definition is an exercise in doubt and irreducibility. Even though groups like SGU try to sneak in science and reason as part of the definition of modern skepticism, this is only a practical move to be able to engage in meta-skepticism which allows advocacy under the name “skepticism”. The statement, “skepticism is the best tool to obtain logic and reason”, is itself an ideological position, but a necessary axiom to be able to “put on pants”.

2) I believe that Rebecca Watson’s ideological feminism has become more important to her than her skepticism. Or, I suppose put a better way, feminism and her ideology are apparently driving her more than skepticism. Put even a better way, I suppose that it appears to me this is the case.  But I don’t think I’m alone in feeling this way. But I also actually don’t have a problem with her shifting her focus from skepticism and into feminism. I support all forms of feminism — even if I disagree with some of the individual expressions of feminism — because at its core, feminism shares my goal of making women equal in value and force in society (if not giving women a greater role!). I believe that the world is inherently better when women are given a full voice. I do believe that some forms of radical feminism are irrational and illogical and taken to their logical conclusion would be highly detrimental to society — but I still find value to that: it shifts the center and makes rational, progressive feminist arguments seem tame and much more digestible to the general public. We need people to kick down the door whether or not they are being reasonable. I don’t believe Rebecca is always being reasonable when it comes to feminism, but I also don’t really care. Go after it! I don’t think Rebecca leaving SGU and throwing in with ideology is necessarily a bad thing, nor is it necessary for her to choose one or the other. I think she could continue to juggle the two, but unlike some of the Social Justice Warriors, I don’t believe one entails the other. So if it makes sense for Rebecca to focus on one over the other, I fully support the decision.

Finally, I’ll mention some specific points of disagreement with Rebecca’s actions over the years, as I believe these are examples in support of my position that she is more ideologically driven these days as opposed to skeptically driven. Again, I’d like to preface this by saying that for the most part (and certainly in relation the general public) Rebecca Watson is a thoughtful, reasonable person, but I believe she has moved away from the skeptical movement and toward feminist ideology in her advocacy. Perhaps that is necessary. Rhetoric really is effective even if it is seemingly contrary to skepticism.

  • I do not think calling D.J. Grothe a “monster” is reasonable.
  • I tend to think that there is something to what  Abbie Smith and Stef McGraw said on the way Rebecca Watson behaved.
  • I think her ideology causes her to have a blind spot for sussing out real hatred for women from people merely criticizing her views or behavior.
  • I disagree with her specifically about her advocacy for conference policies, and generally about the infantilization of women that these types of policies promote.
  • I think the paradox of using the term “privilege”,  is that only people with “privilege” would think of using the term “privilege”. Also, “privilege” is almost always used as an ad hominem and I have yet to hear any actual analysis of how one would determine a scale of privilege or how we could possibly use it as an evaluation tool of fairness or justice.
  • Speaking of privilege, I think Rebecca Watson et. al. use only the most uncharitable interpretation of their opponent’s positions.
  • I think she overreacted and made an enemy of Richard Dawkins.
  • I also think that the high maintenance monitoring of commentary at Skepchick is more ideologically driven, than skeptically driven. I think ideology has put her (perhaps necessarily) in an “us vs. them” situation, where dissent is not acceptable.
  • I don’t think she is necessarily a hypocrite for the nudy Skepchick calendar and her current feminist positions – anyone can grow and change positions – but I do believe it is hypocritical for her to so harshly judge those that don’t share her current positions.
  • I think there was something really off-putting about her sock-puppeting behavior at the JREF forums – if not completely nefarious, then her actions were certainly self-serving.
  • Boycotting TAM was another overreaction, and attacking DJ Grothe during that time seemed pretty out there, and maligning him seemed uncalled for.

A lot of these examples of Rebecca’s behavior over the years seem ideologically driven and not those of a skeptic. Which is okay, I don’t point out these things to vilify her, but I also think that ideologues should not be so quick to condemn people with a “you are either for us or against us” attitude, because they will find their own behaviors reflected back from their perceived enemies. We all make mistakes, but one of the worst attributes of bad ideology is giving harbor to bad behavior for those who agree with you and viciously attacking those who disagree with you for the exact same behavior. This is where critical thinking goes out the window in favor of ideology, and I think Rebecca has engaged in this from time to time.

But I also think that there is much more overlap in mine and Rebecca Watson’s worldview than not. I simply think that she has chosen to focus more strongly on certain parts of her advocacy than skepticism in the past several years and I compliment and encourage her effort — even if I don’t always agree with it. I do think it is time she moved on from the SGU, because while I don’t think she has left skepticism, I do believe she has drifted in her advocacy focus over the years toward socio-political ideology. SGU has clear, stated goals of scientific-skeptical advocacy and education. These goals are antithetical to political movements and they are apolitical, sometimes to the degree of annoyance of some listeners. I think Rebecca struggled with her desire to be an ideological/political advocate and the role she had on SGU.

In the end I hope it works out great for everyone. I hope Rebecca continues to find her socio-political voice and affects the change she desires, and I hope SGU continues to kick ass. I will put in my two cents here and say that Rebecca needs to be replaced by not one, but two women (or three, or four). Perhaps it “shouldn’t matter” if they replace her with women or not, but I say it does. I think more women voices everywhere are called for and until women are equally represented, I see no reason not to specifically seek them out for vital roles. I think female voices make everything stronger. Give credit where credit is due, Rebecca made SGU stronger. She made it stronger from a production standpoint, and she made it stronger by growing the audience. It was in no small part because she had a different voice, and different voices usually complement more than they detract.

So, good luck Rebecca and “so long” and hopefully it’s “good riddance” from the perspective of both you and SGU.


As I’ve stated before, and I will undoubtedly state again, I’m a hack blogger, not an “author” or “journalist” and as such, I’m pretty lazy about sourcing. I just write opinions in this online diary rant, so I don’t feel overly compelled to meticulously source everything I say. I do what I can, but this is just a hobby that hopefully puts my voice out there to whatever degree it matters (probably none). That being said, here is a list of sources (by no means exhaustive) of background information relevant to this post.

  • Rebecca’s Blog Site
  • Richard Dawkins’ “Dear Muslima” letter in response to Elevatorgate, contained in the following link:
  • Rebecca’s Response to Dear Muslima
  • Site dedicated to crushing all things Rebecca. Example of love her or hate her, she creates sparks.
  • Another article not particularly in the pro-Watson camp
  • Freethought blogs (pro-feminism) and Slymepit (anti-feminism). Not equating these two places, simply showing where you can get what I think are extreme views on either side of the feminist schism within skepticism. Slymepit came out of a thread from Abbie Smith’s ERV site who I really like. She seems to have disappeared from the fray and is actually doing real science. Damn you Abbie for eschewing drama and actually working. In the end I think both sides are right and both sides are wrong. That doesn’t make me a fence sitter, given any specific topic or question I will have an opinion one way or the other, those individual opinions just so happen to agree with parts of one side and parts of the other.
  • You can also check out Freethought blogs to get a healthy dose of Atheism+, a group that represents my point about once advocacy kicks in, one has adopted an ideology and left skepticism. As a matter of fact PZ Myers did just that: he turned in his skepticism card, and I believe rightfully so given his values as a Social Justice Warrior.
  • Here’s a good primer on Atheism+ written by Richard Carrier. Atheism+ which has much overlap feminism and is a movement that in no small part is due directly and indirectly to elevatorgate and the fallout afterwards. This article can also serve as a rabbit hole for links and a history of Atheism+ and SJW. Like with most players in this theater, I like Richard Carrier, but also simultaneously find him to be an arrogant twit. Unlike, much of the A+ crowd, I can like and respect a person, but disagree (sometimes respectfully, sometimes not), without banishing them. I enjoy Richard’s books, but find him rigid, dogmatic, smug, and arrogant in much of his public persona. But so what? If we had to approve of and like 100% everyone’s thoughts and actions to be able to share space with them, then no one would like anyone. Judgment to this degree is for religious zealots, and I left religion in part because I value everyone, even if I disagree with them, even if I despise their views. At its root, I cannot support these movements because I believe ultimately they 1) undermine their own goals by excluding people that could be their allies (not an accommodationist argument!) 2) They don’t want people like me in their movement, so I respect their decision to exclude me. 3) While their goals actually reflect mine very closely, we disagree on fundamental definitions of what “feminism”, “atheism”, “justice”, and “fairness” are and also the best way to achieve the similar goals we have.

There are many, many more links, but if you pull the thread a little of any of the above links, you’ll be able to go down a rabbit hole that could entertain and/or repulse you for weeks.

In the end, I support everyone who uses skepticism as a foundation to inform their lives and ideologies even if I disagree with their conclusions. I believe that’s okay. Politics, social policy, fairness, justice, and other human constructs are instructed by individual values and no one has an objective claim to the ultimate answer. That’s reserved for the religious and for extreme ideologues, not skeptics. I believe some ideologies are abhorrent, but individual people rarely are.





Neil deGrasse Tyson, Welcome to the Game

Neil deGrasse Tyson took to Twitter on Christmas and made some fun tweets that appeared to be poking a little fun towards the holiday:

On this day long ago, a child was born who, by age 30, would transform the world. Happy Birthday Isaac Newton b. Dec 25, 1642.

QUESTION: ThIs year, what do all the world’s Muslims and Jews call December 25th? ANSWER: Thursday

Merry Christmas to all. A Pagan holiday (BC) becomes a Religious holiday (AD). Which then becomes a Shopping holiday (USA).

Santa knows Physics: Of all colors, Red Light penetrates fog best. That’s why Benny the Blue-nosed reindeer never got the gig

Pretty harmless stuff, I thought they were fun. You can read more about the totally predictable, whiny, Christian backlash here if you’d like. What I find much more interesting about the tweets is that Neil deGrasse Tyson seems to maybe have done a 180 about the role scientists play in public. Here’s a clip from 2006 of him publicly admonishing Richard Dawkins for failing to nuance his positions publicly:

I agreed with Dawkins back then, and disagreed with Neil deGrasse Tyson (and of course Dawkins absolutely crushes it in this exchange). I still agree with Dawkins, but now apparently so does Neil deGrasse Tyson.  Welcome, my friend, welcome.


%d bloggers like this: