The Oatmeal’s sacrilege steams up believers

December 10, 2014 • 10:34 am

Matthew Inman, producer of the fantastic strip The Oatmeal (including one of my favorite comics, The Bobcats), is lately on a tear by promoting evolution in a sarcastic way and dissing the religious alternative as belief in “Jibbers Crabst,” a Holy Crustacean that breathes fire.

First watch this 11-minute video by Inman that appeared on YouTube on December 5; it’s from BAHFest West 2014, whatever that is.  You’ll recognize some of the creationist tropes. It’s a wonderful and absolutely hilarious talk, highly recommended by Professor Ceiling Cat.

Be sure to watch the sign-language woman, too; you’ll learn how to make signs for “priapism” and “persistent erection,” which I think amused the audience no end.

I’m pretty sure he’s an atheist. 🙂

To add insult to injury, Inman sent this out in the latest Oatmeal newsletter:

Screen Shot 2014-12-10 at 10.37.37 AM

And this was just published the Oatmeal’s Facebook page:

10154950_10154961194210078_6908090039437268872_n

(You can buy bumper stickers of this on the Oatmeal site.)

Inman also put this up, which also appears in his talk above. Nothing riles the faithful more than a definition like this, which in effect is true!:

10678838_10154949783760078_1299836946382843633_n

And so the faithful pushed back. This hilarious interchange between Inman and a reader was posted on Oatmeal’s “Hate mail of the day“:


vr9vITT

Here Inman seems to be imitating those psychology computer programs that just spit out programmed answers when you type in stuff about your troubles. (The psychotherapist Carl Rogers behaved much the same way.) Now that’s the way to engage the angered religionist!

h/t: Ginger K, Grania

 

Calvinian teleological evolution

November 18, 2014 • 5:56 am

“The World That Knew We Were Coming”

—Title of Chapter Six in Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul, by Kenneth Miller

Replace Calvin in Sunday’s Calvin and Hobbes strip with “Homo sapiens“, and you have an accurate description of theological human exceptionalism, as well as an inkling of the evolutionary teleology of misguided philosophers like Tom Nagel:

ch141116-1

The strip was drawn by Bill Watterson, a very interesting fellow (do have a look at his Wikipedia bio). He stopped drawing Calvin and Hobbes in 1995, but I guess they’re recycled—and none the worse for it.

As for the philosophical/academic preoccupation of some of the strips, Wikipedia notes the following in its piece on Calvin and Hobbes (Calvin is the young boy, Hobbes his stuffed tiger, and you can guess where their names came from):

Watterson also lampooned the academic world. In one example, Calvin writes a “revisionist autobiography,” recruiting Hobbes to take pictures of him doing stereotypical kid activities like playing sports in order to make him seem more well-adjusted. In another strip, he carefully crafts an “artist’s statement,” claiming that such essays convey more messages than artworks themselves ever do (Hobbes blandly notes, “You misspelled Weltanschauung“). He indulges in what Watterson calls “pop psychobabble” to justify his destructive rampages and shift blame to his parents, citing “toxic codependency.” In one instance, he pens a book report based on the theory that the purpose of academic writing is to “inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity,” titled The Dynamics of Interbeing and Monological Imperatives in Dick and Jane: A Study in Psychic Transrelational Gender Modes. Displaying his creation to Hobbes, he remarks, “Academia, here I come!” Watterson explains that he adapted this jargon (and similar examples from several other strips) from an actual book of art criticism.

Here’s that famous “academia, here I come!” strip:

calvin

Professor Ceiling cat also has a stuffed tiger!:

Photo on 11-18-14 at 6.50 AM

The evolutionary psychology of politics

November 16, 2014 • 7:01 am

Today’s Doonesbury, by Garry Trudeau, echoes some old research news (trigger warning: Chris M**ney):

db141116

 

I haven’t read the relevant papers (I have neither the time nor the interest), but if conservatives have bigger amygdalas (amygdalae?), is there evidence that their politics, and their “innate” fearfulness, is a consequence rather than a cause of conservativism? Even if it’s “genetic” (as M**ney claims), well, political affiliation also is inherited, but through culture rather than DNA, and even if it’s really genetic, it could still be some other trait that causes the amygdala to enlarge as a consequence of political affiliation.

Finally, Mooney argues that this is an evolutionary adaptation. If so, then why the variation? If fearfulness was adaptive, or is still adaptive, why do we have so many liberals today? Mooney says this about Republicans:

And thus are we drawn to the only context in which we can make any sense of any of this — the understanding that we human primates evolved. As such, these rapid-fire responses to aversive stimuli are something we share with other animals — a core part of our life-saving biological wiring.

But then are liberals somehow maladapted? There’s surely more to it than this, but, as I said, I haven’t read the papers.

h/t: Linda Grilli