Perhaps you remember Karl — I ripped into an interview he did a while back. Well, “ripped into” is probably the wrong phrase — I pointed out several things I thought were quite good, and then tore up his sectarian defense of Christianity, his blind obeisance before the Christian bible, and his mangling of what other scientists have said about religion. It must have rankled — he now gripes that “Myers doesn’t seem to like me” and has slapped together a nice bit of hackwork that is the lead story on Salon. And clumsy hatchet job it is.
Here’s his opening:
PZ Myers is a true believer, a science crusader with the singled-minded enthusiasm of a televangelist. A biologist at the University of Minnesota at Morris and a columnist for Seed magazine, Myers has earned notoriety with his blog, Pharyngula, in which he reports on new developments in biology and indiscriminately excoriates those he views as hostile to science, a pantheon of straw men and women that includes theologians, journalists and churchgoers. He is Richard Dawkins without the fame or felicitous prose style.
Then he recounts the tale of the “Great Desecration”, but without any of the context, not bothering to mention the hideous history of the Catholic response to rumors of desecration, and not even mentioning Bill Donohue’s bullying tactics. Oh, and then he compares me to Jonathan Edwards, misrepresents his own interview — he only “suggested that science doesn’t know everything,” which “got [him] condemned to whatever hell Myers believes in” — and claims that atheists like me, Dawkins, Atkins, and Dennett are just practicing a new religion. Over and over again. He goes on at length with this strange claim that we are pushing science as a replacement for religion.
But let’s assume for the moment that this is possible — that science can be canonized, moralized, transcendentalized and politicized into a replacement religion, with followers, codes of conduct, celebrated texts and sacred blogs, houses of worship, “saints” of some sort and inquisitors of another sort. And let’s suppose that it’s possible for this new religion to move out of the ivory towers of academia, where it lives now, to take its place alongside the other “world” religions, attracting hundreds of millions of adherents drawn from the main streets of the world and all walks of life. What would this new religion be like once it became institutionalized? After all, if religion fills a genuine human need, something has to fill the hole created by its passing — something that appeals to billions of people.
He babbles on quite a bit about this bizarre fantasy that we’re trying to replicate the silly superstitions and rituals of his idea of religion. Sacred blogs? Saints? This is just foolishness of his own invention. Right there in the critical post I wrote, I said plainly, “Gould and Dawkins do not claim that evolution as a religion, or that it should be treated as one, and neither do I; that would be ridiculous, since if I were equating the two, that would mean I think people ought to grow out of their absurd faith in evolution.” In the desecration post, I plainly said that nothing should be sacred. Giberson read those, apparently, and then decided that I really meant the opposite.
It’s funny how he provides these botched descriptions of what I said, but doesn’t bother to actually link to it, where it’s rather obvious that his version is misleading and dishonest.
Oh, and I’m not one of the saints. Here’s my role.
And we have inquisitors like Myers to ferret out heretics and martyr them on his Web site when they appear.
Man, my criticism of his ideas must have really burned, that he would now compare me to inquisitors and his own state to martyrdom. Hint to Karl: Catholic inquisitors tied people to stakes and literally set them on fire. Writing in dissent about someone’s ideas does not really compare very well. I might add that historically, Christians murdered Jews by the thousands for imaginary desecrations; I tossed an unpalatable scrap of bad bread in a garbage can. Any comparisons he wants to make will not flatter religion.
In order for many of us to truly feel at home in the universe so grandly described by science, that science needs to coexist as peacefully as possible with the creation stories of our religious traditions. I share with Myers, Dawkins and Weinberg the conviction that we are the product of cosmic and biological evolution, that Einstein and Darwin got it right. But I want to believe that, through the eyes of my faith, this is how God created the world and that God cares about that world. Does this belief, shared by so many of our species, make me dangerous?
No, Karl, it makes you foolish. The eyes of your faith are delusions fostered by tradition and dogma, there is no evidence for your god or that he created anything, and there sure as heck isn’t any evidence that your imaginary friend cares about us.
It also makes Salon look foolish, that they would put an article written by someone with a patent grudge front and center.
StuV, “Gott Mit Uns” were on the belt buckles of the members of the Wehrmacht. The motto of the SS was Meine Ehre heißt Treue.(“My honor is loyalty”) So perhaps one could make the argument that honor and loyalty leads to genocide.
I have to point out that my last statement was meant to be sarcastic.
Yawn.
You’re still stupid.
StuV @ 491 – it’s simple. Anyone who says they are a Christian is a true christian, obviously. Since there is no other definition, then that has to be the default position. Now, if someone were to give a definition that is accepted by (who? theologians?) a majority, then we can begin to look at the evidence and come to a conclusion, which of course will need to be peer-reviewed. Maybe this can be Heddle’s PhD dissertation? Think about it…you can be the definer of an entire line of argumentation.
Of course, he can continue to obfuscate and avoid the question, claiming that documents which are “still seriously lacking in evidence of probative value, and [are] consequently ill-suited to serve as a basis for any international discussion” (edited to maintain plural tone – original is singular, as above) are indicative of a plot to destroy or subvert Churches in Nazi Germany (is it all Churches, or just a particular sect?) and thus proves (or at least supports) his beliefs.
Which will it be? Enquiring minds want to know.
Yawn.
You’re still stupid.
Well, if you’d move out of the fucking basement, your mom and I could have a moment of peace and you wouldn’t have to see me every morning.
By the way, when she told you to take care of your own laundry, she didn’t mean for you to wear the same goddamn underwear every goddamn day.
Nick Gotts, I would suggest that Baba read Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning but I am afraid he would use it as a doorstop.
Ugh. Never rely on hearsay. Fine, the Wehrmacht then.
Heddle, Baba, since the question seems to be too difficult, let me make it multiple-choice (multiple answers allowed):
A “True Christian” is:
a) Someone who calls him/herself Christian
b) Someone who truly believes in God
c) Someone who attends church regularly
d) Someone who tithes
e) Someone who follows the 10 commandments
f) Someone who follows the Bible inerrantly
g) Someone who believes in the Bible literally
For bonus points:
1. Which Christian denomination is the “true” one? They differ so greatly that they cannot all be “true”.
2. If you include (b), please detail how anyone but this person could know it to be true.
I wait with bated breath.
You’re still stupid.
Posted by: Baba
You are not even trying now. Also, you have not pointed out where I was being stupid and irrational. You lying morally stupid fucktard. And I backed up my claims about you.
Mind your own business.
Your mama.
My dick’s bigger.
Who’s the truer atheist, you or Stalin?
I’m disappointed, pompous and dim.
Baba:
[Links added by me.]
Now that’s hilarious.
Baba, you’re like kent . You’ve done the blog equivalent of standing next to the guy with the shirt that says: “I’m with stupid”.
@heddle:
But it is my question to you. So why not answer it? What’s your point in all of this?
Which argument? The one where I pointed out that Hitler didn’t need to be a Christian in order for his use of Christian imagery and historical scapegoating to succeed and that it succeeded because the vast majority of the German people were Christians. You brought up the “could it be that Hitler was using Christianity for political expediency” argument. I was answering that with my original post. I never said nor implied that you made the “”atheists are evil” argument so I don’t know what you were trying to prove with this statement.
Moving on…
Of course, now you seem to be arguing that we (meaning you) don’t know that the vast majority of the German people were really Christians.
Let’s say that is true. What is your point?
If your only point (and I doubt it) is that the issue is much more complicated than most people tend to let on in an internet blog comment post, then you win. That is correct. Most people don’t write dissertations in venues such as this. But given what we know about the history of the European Churches and their historical relationship with the Jews and also what we know of the ease with which this, coupled with other religious dogma, was used to whip people into a frenzy and also what we know of the official stances of the Catholic and Lutheran churches with regards to the Nazi regime and also what we can tell (but I suppose not “know””) of Hitler’s religious views from his own writings and dealings with the Church, I think it is more than fine to counter the “Hitler was an atheist” meme with “Nuh-uh and here’s why” without writing a research paper about it.
But, again, I don’t think that’s your only point. So why not enlighten us?
Well hell, don’t y’ll fight for it at once. George W. Bush is a true christian.
Granted, he has no more brains than a ring-tailed Bandersnatch, but by gawd he’s a true christian. So there.
As I noted above, your mom isn’t the least bit disappointed, and you really need to leave the house once in awhile. Y’know, maybe get a job, or a girlfriend, take all of those crumpled and stiff Kleenex out to the trash….
Just being a good step-daddy.
I’m disappointed, pompous and dim. – Baba
Baba, you never spoke a truer word.
Hello mate!
Hey, kid: remember, when using blockquotes, you need to use the / if you wanna nest ’em properly.
Didn’t you learn anything at DeVry?
There’s something big lurking in the water just behind BaBa.
Thanks for the link – it helps to highlight your inability to comprehend simple language. Do you want me to help you to spell “SS”? Go back to school dimwit.
Rapier!
Alright, I gotta get outta here.
See you tomorrow morning, Baba? You need to be ready by 7:30 if you want a ride to school.
By the way, a baggie fell out of your knapsack the other day, and I’m very disappointed in you. Mostly in the fact that at age 15 you still don’t know what oregano smells like.
Greasemonkey+killfile+BABA=no baba to read.
Step-child fondler!
Yep, me too. The smell of troll scat is just too much.
StuV, #491
No, I never deflect questions. That one was just too trivial. But OK,–a “true Christian” is one who has been regenerated and is presentable to a holy God not by his own righteousness but by the righteousness of Christ. I mean, gosh, that’s Christianity 101.
My gut instinct is that you actually meant an entirely different question–probably along the lines of “how does one detect a true Christian?”
Pimientita, #511
It’s fun to argue and debate. Isn’t that a common reason for getting into discussions on blogs?
Nothing beyond the fact that that which some are claiming is obviously true, isn’t.
No, that’s my only point.
See ya! Thanks for the BJ step-daddy!!
BTW who is the truer atheist, you or Stalin?
Okay, Heddle, now try it again in plain English – you know, like the rest of us here. Why not, on a whim, explain exactly what “one who has been regenerated and is presentable to a holy God not by his own righteousness but by the righteousness of Christ” means, and how we are able to determine that. If it’s so basic that it is Christianity 101, then obviously everyone agrees with this, and it should be a simple matter to determine if anyone is such, right?
Please, go ahead. We’re all waiting.
one who has been regenerated and is presentable to a holy God not by his own righteousness but by the righteousness of Christ – heddle, defining a “True Christian”
English translation: heddle gets to decide who is a “True Christian”, and will make whatever decision happens to suit his purpose at any given time.
Funny thing, I always thought that a Christian was one who accepted the divinity of Christ and accepted him as our savior, but then, I was brought up among those upstart newcomers, the non-Christian Roman Catholic Church, so who am I to say.
Comment by Baba blocked.
Makes me smile every time.
Sounds like an atheist talking about morality.
Ah! No more Baba. Sweet.
But OK,–a “true Christian” is one who has been regenerated and is presentable to a holy God not by his own righteousness but by the righteousness of Christ.
See? I knew it was too complicated for you. Could you try the multiple choice version?
Anyway, heddle, let me try another tack: by your above “definition”, how can anyone tell a True Christian other than the person him/herself?
StuV – you need “Heddlevision” – it’s a gift of the Holy Spirit, available at our toll-free 900 number ( ;) )for the low, low price of $39.95. Order now and we’ll throw in the Gift of Tongues!
In Calvinist theology, I believe only God is able to make these kinds of determinations. (i.e. I don’t think heddle is claiming to be able to tell, himself [not that that makes any of it less incomprhensible, but whatev])
Wrong, stupid. That was the priest. Why, whatever did you learn from that ICS course we paid for you to take?
Whichever one of us is really an atheist. Duh.
StuV, #533
But I did answer the one you asked.
Like I suspected, this was the question you intended. That’s always the question that unbelievers think is a “gotcha.”
This question, is much more complicated and PZ will yell if I go into too much theology. I’ll just point out that the New Testament establishes the practice of excommunication, and the basis for the judgment is that Christians will be known by their fruits. So the short answer is: there is no definitive way to judge whether a person is a true Christian–but it is most definitely not on, or at least not solely on, the basis of their profession or sincerity. Examples in the New Testament of people who claim to be a Christian but are not are easy to find. So we are, as a church, to judge their actions. If, for example, like the man in the Corinthian church, a man insists on sleeping with his step mother, we are are to treat him as if he is not true Christian. We recognize that it is a flawed approach, but one that is mandated, and one that is subject to false positives and false negatives, and that the actual determination is up to God.
StuV #533 wrote:
Perhaps not even that. Technically speaking, I suspect that heddle can with perfect honesty answer your question with “only God knows!”
Of course, there are all sorts of secular means of distinguishing a Christian from non-Christian (or Mormon from non-Mormon or neo-pagan from non-neo-pagan.) It can’t really just come down to “whoever sincerely thinks they’re a Christian IS a Christian,” because there are some awfully muddled definitions out there, based on muddled understandings.
For example, what do we do about the nice ecumenical folks who claim to be Christian — AND Hindu AND Muslim AND Aztec Sun God Worshipper AND all the lovely, lovely religions rolled into ONE because they’re all the SAME and it’s LOVE!!
And, where, exactly, do we place the good Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong, who loves God, writes passionate apologetics, and considers himself to be “rescuing” Christianity from Fundamentalism, by throwing out irrelevant aspects like Biblical Inerrancy and Creationism — and Hell — and the Trinity and the Virgin Birth — and the miracles and the resurrection and the atonement and original sin, as well as the existence of the theistic form of God.
I have some sympathy for Christians who complain he’s pushed the envelope a little far on that one.
But we have to divide lines somewhere, as a practical matter, and decide what the criteria is going to be for human beings – given that God is apparently keeping it under wraps for the Final Reveal.
I don’t know. It may depend in part on what the purpose is. I don’t like that much, since it allows people to push statistics according to personal agendas, but I don’t see how it could be avoided completely.
guys responding to baba:
stoooooooooooooop.
She is (I assume baba is a girl’s name) a troll. Not “lying, combative jackass trying to get our blood pressure rising but really believes their cause” troll but “internet forum dedicated to gaming and 4chan filled with 14 year old kids” troll. If we could use images she’d be posting goatse and pain series.
here I’ll put directions for installing the killfile for those like me that are unfamiliar with scripts:
Greasemonkey:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748
Go here and dl/install. It requires you to restart your browser.
Killfile:
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/4107
After installing greasemonkey go to that killfile page and click install script. After that restart firefox and go to tools–greasemonkey–manage user scripts and add the main pharyngula page to the killfile. After reloading the page if you’re still on Pharyngula you should get an option right after the blue posted by text that says [kill] [hide comment]. Click kill to not read the troll.
Christians will be known by their fruits… So we are, as a church, to judge their actions. – heddle
So who is this “we”? There isn’t a church, there are, literally, thousands, often refusing to recognise each other as Christians. Of course, heddle “knows” his is the one true church – but so do the Catholics, the Lutherans, the Baptists… The alleged criterion is not “imperfect”; it’s completely useless.
heddle #537 wrote:
Okay, this made me laugh, given the sort of gibbering garbage that’s been thrown around at the tail end of this long and soon to be obsolete thread. Poor babe. Unless you’re going to post long blocks of cut ‘n paste, though, I doubt much that PZ will care.
It will probably be dull to you, though, as you’ve been through this before, and I think your theology is that the unregenerate won’t understand. Pearls, and swine, etc.
Bottom line, there is no such thing as “Christianity.” There are ChristianiTIES. The Calvinist answer will be different from that of other sects — not wildly different, maybe, but different enough from some of them. And, of course, there are forms of Christianity (less radical than Spong’s) which have picked up on the fact that of course the “true message of Jesus” is humanistic, and they WILL reference good heart and good deeds as more important than accepting the atonement.
I’ve been told I’m a “better Christian” than many who call themselves so. Several times. And I’m not particularly nice. I think the idea has a charm to many. Perhaps we’re getting into that idea of the renegade and dissenter, the stone that was rejected, and so on.
Like you, they get to appeal to God as arbiter. Which ends up a stalemate for all practical purposes, regardless of whether any of you are right.
Does sastra have and OM yet?
Sorry, that should of course be “an OM”
Yes.
Wait, what? Baba came back?
I loooooove the Killfile.
I do kind of agree that the tennis match style debate of what Hitler’s belief system was is kind of a lost cause – and, in and of itself, makes little difference to my lack of belief in god.
Ditto Stalin.
So, Hitler killed lots of people – including Jews and Christians. Stalin killed lots of people, including Jews and Christians.
Can one or more of the theists here explain to me how exactly the wanton killing, on numerous occasions, of vast numbers of the members of two distinct groups of people who consider themselves to have a special relationship with an all-powerful being in any way supports the existence of such a being?
If he does exist he doesn’t seem to like ‘his’ people all that much, does he?
Ah, that makes sense
@ NanuNanu #539: It works! That is fantastic, thank you very much.
@Phineas #547
You’re welcome!
It took me forever to figger it out though, Ive never used scripts and kept getting linked to the script itself (which I had no idea what to do with) instead of the page that had the install button.
sad face
:[
Did somebody wipe up after Baba? Yeck.
I’ve been at Heddles website. Interesting. Heddle is using PZ’s site for fodder like some of the other ‘true christians’. How cute.
You don’t get a pass from me Heddle. You’re just another one of the ‘flock’. Trying to roll yourself in glitter doesn’t hide it.
“Trying to roll yourself in glitter doesn’t hide it.”
Funny, I thought it was something else he was rolling in.
Patricia@549,
I went and had a look at heddle too. Gosh, he’s a self-important little squit, isn’t he?
Heddle has been a sometimes infrequent fixture here for a long time.
Yep, Heddle is a real cutie. ;)
Gotta go gents, I have lavender & honey cornbread in the oven and it smells *like heaven*. Grin.
Good night sweethearts!
Piss off Heddle.
Good night Patricia! I must get to bed. Night all.
I’ve been wading my way through the archives, Rev. BDC @552, I think you got it right.
A question for the theists:
“How can ace be one -and- eleven? What kind of god would allow that?”
Some of you guys might want to email Andrew Sullivan about this post on PZ:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/07/the-rev-pz-myer.html
He’d be more likely to publish dissenting opinions if he gets enough of them.
John Marley, #556:
There’s nothing like the Simpsons for quotes to mock belief. I always like the one from Homerpalooza where Bart asks Homer which religion he is and he responds:
You know, the one with all the well-meaning rules that don’t work in real life…uh, Christianity
There is at least one version of that episode where that segment is cut, which is a bit annoying.
PZ’s recent spectacles do little to achieve his alleged goals. His actions have simultaneously distracted attention from the more serious issues surrounding the “faith” debate and instead focused it on himself. The ‘desecration’ was more cringe-worthy than horrifying. The culmination of PZ’s ressentiment is not an influential tome introducing new ideas, but rather an act I would expect from a junior high student who has spent way too much time playing D&D. It is certainly not the behavior of an academic. It is the behavior of a person desperately seeking celebrity. A proponent of a world view whose ideas have run so thin, that a stunt like this is required to gain recognition has jumped the shark.
WillG, #559, wrote:
Care to explain what you think PZ’s goals were, and how exactly this ‘spectacle’ failed to achieve them? What you’ve written makes me doubt you know what his goals were.
If “Bach’s music is proof of the existence of God”, then Mozart’s DIE ZAUBERFLOTE is surely proof that Freemasonry is the correct belief-system.
(There’s a great recording of a live performance from Salzburg 1949 conducted by Furtwangler that way outclasses all the others I’ve heard, which is a lot. The entire cast, including the most minor characters, are current or future legends of Classical German singing-acting and/or athletic vocal technique. One of the Two Men in Armor who sing in unison for about twenty seconds and then open the doors into the chambers of trial by fire and water and that’s all they do in the whole work is played by the great Hermann Uhde who later became very famous in the title role of THE FLYING DUTCHMAN. One of the Three Ladies is Gertrude Grob-Prandl who is still generally acknowledged to be the loudest Brunhilde in recorded history.)
I’m not sure what proposition THE RING OF THE NIBELUNG proves. Some precursor form of Murphy’s Law maybe? Any plan you make will go wrong?
A cure for insomnia: try to list all the different plans and schemes that go wrong in THE RING.
Re Bach: having sung several of his big masses and passions, my favorite of his things is the Christmas Oratorio. It has some of the most satisfying music and it’s less pretentious than the masses and passions. Some of it is actually (*gasp*) funny. There’s a trio for Soprano, Mezzo, and Tenor soloists (that’s just unbelievably beautiful) in which the tenor and soprano sing with long flowery melismas, “When will the Savior come?” and the mezzo keeps interrupting to say “Be quiet–He’s really already here!”. The recording to get is conducted by Karl Richter, with soloists Gundula Janowitz, Christa Ludwig, Franz Crass, and Fritz Wunderlich.
My favorite of all religious pieces is Mozart’s Coronation Mass. Under pressure from his employing church officer he condensed his casual vocal-dramatic genius into twenty minutes. It’s the most fun and easy to sing and also heartbreaking.
A wonderful, underperformed (because it’s too demanding), piece of religious music is Rossini’s Stabat Mater. Also Haydn’s CREATION. Both actually manage to make religious concepts seem appealing. In the case of the Stabat Mater, that’s a considerable accomplishment when you consider that the text includes prayers for increased personal suffering in order to better identify with the Virgin Mary. If you can make that seem appealing you can make anything seem appealing.
Wowbagger you are correct. I have not read PZ regularly in perhaps 6 months. I am not sure YOU or me has a special understanding of his true intent for his “project”. Whatever the case, I may be ignorant of his specific intent in piercing various objects with a nail. HOWEVER, I inferred his general goal as revealing religious beliefs as incompatible with a modern secular society. And perhaps a threat to a modern liberal democracy. His methods ranged from the scholarly, satirical, polemical, vegetable, and mineral. I prefer discussions on this topic to be serious (which PZ used to do more of before he became an internet celeb). To act so childishly demeans his cause.
In short (his small) fame has led him to shift from a provocateur to a an attention seeker.
Baba expounded:
And that, folks, is the best Baba has to offer.
Well this incident was in response to the actions of Catholic church members and parishioners to a college kid who took a Eucharist wafer back to his pew to show a friend and then was physically assaulted. When he left the church with the wafer his life was subsequently threatened and he is now being threatened with other “punishments” from his school at the urging of the Catholics involved and others. PZ’s threat to a cracker was more to show the over reaction and the out of balance response of the Catholics. Follwing that the whole thing was blown way out of proportion by the Church and especially Bill Donohue.
I suggest reading here to get the gist or at least the start of it.
WillG,
I wasn’t familiar with your name – I wasn’t sure if you were one of the new breed of papist troll that we’ve been infested with ever since PZ chose to wage war on magical baked goods.
You wrote revealing religious beliefs as incompatible with a modern secular society – and that’s pretty much it in my opinion; however, it was a bit more specific in scope.
To me, what he wanted to do was show there was a lunatic fringe amongst the catholics – and if you read through all the posts on the topic (there are many thousands, btw) you’ll see that he succeeded in that goal; we were told that threats to the cracker were as bad as (if not worse than) being shot in the head or having your family kidnapped, raped and murdered (not necessarily in that order).
Since there were catholics who expressed scorn for the overreacting of their radical co-religionists, as well as other christians who felt it was ridiculous to believe the cracker becomes the body of christ, or to treat it as if it did, PZ did indeed show the existence of such a demented minority within one sect.
Is he an attention seeker? Maybe. I don’t have a problem with that.
And, as far as I’m concerned, if he manages to push one fence-sitter into questioning their beliefs and, by doing so, gets them to take one step closer to freeing themselves from religion, it’s a small price to pay.
To #243:
Bach’s music is sublime. William F. Buckley should be ashamed of himself for trying to credit anyone other than Bach with its creation.
Leave ‘god’ in the dustbin of history where it belongs.
I regard Bach as the best composer by far.
Bach’s Chaconne is the most beautiful, passionate, and moving piece of music ever written.
I listen to Bach daily.
Can I comprehend Bach’s music? In part. I immerse myself in it. I’d never be foolish enough to believe that I’ve gotten everything from it that it has to offer.
Bach boring? Don’t be an idiot.
SoMG:
A bit of a backhanded compliment, no? If loud were a primary virtue, Fox News would be considered a bastion of high culture.
It’s funny to hear the cracker incident described variously as PZ’s “project”, as a “spectacle” with “goals”. Part of his “plan”. He made an offhand joke that turned into the massive undertaking of: receiving a cracker in the mail and throwing it in the trash. Maybe he had secret documents outlining the steps to Operation: Eucharist, but I doubt it.
Maybe he had secret documents outlining the steps to Operation: Eucharist, but I doubt it. – Citizen Z
On the contrary, a strange document, apparently written in bluish blood, covered in cabalistic symbols, and smelling faintly of ammonia and brimstone, has come into my possession, giving a detailed plan and timetaAAAAARRRRGGGGGGHHHH!!!!
Bleah. These days, the only parts of Salon worth reading are Glenn Greenwald and usually War Room, and some of the cartoonists.
Sorry, I missed this comment yesterday.
No, I do not, though the unqualified, sweeping generalization I posted yesterday does imply it. My bad.
What I do believe is that the person who posted the comment about Sauron is incapable (or disinclined) to think in non-theistic terms. We see this incapacity (or disinclination) over and over in the attitudes and writings of many theists. They can’t imagine how a god-shaped hole could possibly be filled by anything not god-shaped.
However, I was wrong to imply that all theists think the same way or have the same limitations.
Mary @ 452: “If this website is strictly about science, then why is there an argument here about the existence of God?”
Who said it was strictly about science? It’s PZ’s personal blog; it naturally is about the stuff that interests him. He is interested in science, especially biology, especially cephalopods, but also religiously-grounded anti-science activists and other religious silliness.
“Atheists claim there is no God. Why then are they consumed with proving they’re right? Atheists should be indifferent to God, if they’re sure he’s not there.”
More accurately, atheists lack belief in gods. Typically we argue that a god who should leave footprints but doesn’t is refuted, but not necessarily those that wouldn’t (i.e. the Deist god, whatever that is). Mostly when we are arguing there are no gods, we’re explaining to various posters (or the lurkers) why there’s no good reason to believe.
“Why launch an attack against someone who is not there?
Ummm… we’re not attacking any god. At least, *I never have. We’re showing some folks that their claims are vacuous.
“It seems from the vulgar language being used by Herr Myers and his fans that there is great rage and frustration beneath their suits and ties.”
Yes. Religious attacks on free speech, on science education, on solving various social problems (like teen pregnancy), and starting wars, often leave me frustrated and irritable.
Plus, believe it or not, some folks are annoyed by mere displays of arrogance and stupidity.
“Myers’ desperate need to desecrate what he thinks is just a cracker looks frantic, backwards, ignorant and foolish.”
But not nearly as foolish as though who are upset about it. How did you feel about the Muslims who threatened the schoolteacher because she allowed her students to name the class teddy bear “Muhammad”?
“Plus, insane. Why go to such lengths if it’s just a cracker?”
He’s a teacher.
“Blaming the victim for one’s own crime is a very old but slick ruse.”
I don’t recall Dr. Myers blaming the cracker, but it’s been a number of long threads, and maybe I missed it.
“It’s still your own fault, and you, we all, are accountable, to the last penny, in this life and the next.”
I am absolutely accountable in this life, and if I wrong somebody it is that person I have to make up to, not an invisible friend.
“If you gamble on your eternity and end up on the wrong side of the fence,there is no chicken exit.”
Perhaps I am more worried about living my only life wallowing in self-deception than I am about annoying one of the thousands of invisible, undetectable deities we humans have imagined over the millennia.
K (#571), I had your back.
It’s not “strictly about science” — but who decided that the question “does God exist?” is NOT a science question?
Did the Big Bang happen? Did modern species evolve from earlier forms? Is mind what the brain does? Can people predict the future? Do humans experience emotions? Does God exist?
It’s an assertion of objective fact. So why is the question of God’s existence included with unscientific questions like “does chocolate taste better than vanilla?” or “should you love your mother?” or “how do you feel?”
Many of our recent religious visitors seem to be bewildered by their discovery that faith is not universally asssumed to be a valuable and desirable habit of mind. Because the miracle of the eucharist cannot be proven scientifically, this is supposed to mean that believing in it anyway is a very hard task requiring strength, commitment, depth of character, and sensitivity. Even if we don’t believe in the particular miracle, we should at least acknowledge and respect the tough moral work those who believe put into it, and not try to shake it.
On the contrary. That’s not hard and noble work, that’s a sloppy abdication of epistemic responsibility. And if it’s brought into the public square, then that WILL be pointed out.
Of course, it also appears that a lot of people haven’t read the original posts, and so they don’t understand the actual issue, and the fact that it WAS brought out into the public square, through an unwarranted demand that all and sundry treat violations of the “sacred” as a secular crime. They apparently think a college teacher one day said “you know, Catholic beliefs are stupid — I’m going to show my students HOW stupid they are, and knock some sense into the Catholics.”
That wasn’t how it happened. If that’s what you’re picturing, then you have no complaint.
Holy Crackers, Batman, The Joker is on the loose again.
Sven: Ah, I see. Thanks. :-)
I have one small thing to add to Kermit and Sastra’s fine responses to Mary, which is this: It’s difficult to avoid talking about religion when it’s being shoved in your face in virtually all aspects of American life, day-in, day-out; when its mythologies attempt to encroach upon the teaching of science, when its demands are inappropriately placed upon the words, actions, policies and character of our elected and appointed public officials, particularly those who aspire to the highest office in this secular government of ours here in the good old USA.
Kseniya @571:
God-shaped holes can be filled with snake liver shoes and goat brains! Mmmm, brains.
Oh, and dancing naked at midnight in parking lot of Papa John’s Pizza. Not that I have anything for or against Papa John’s – I used to live across the street from one and it was a convenient place to dance. The asphalt was hell on the shoes though.
Another tactic might be to use your best faux mobster voice for one from this lovely pair:
I got your god-shaped hole right here [grab crotch].
Hey, god-shaped hole this [grab crotch].
Yes, it’s late on Friday and I’m tired and that makes me more silly than usual.
POETS!
WR, one shouldn’t dance on asphalt while wearing ones snake-liver shoes.
Wowbagger,
Thank you for summarizing the recent activities of PZ. I see you have been nominated (by many posters) for a Molly, so you must be up to date on the pharyngulaverse. I agree that that the cracker piercing succeed in offending Catholics in particular and people of faith in general. But is revealing the existence of extremists in a group with purportedly 1 billion members that impressive? Bill Donahue did not need PZ to look like a buffoon. I prefer to ignore these extremists and not give them a platform.
Finally, I take a more utilitarian approach to “conversion”. Making a single person doubt his beliefs with these antics is well and good, but what about the other possibility? What if a person reads about this prank and says wow, “atheists” are assholes? To put it simply is alienating 5, 10 people worth gaining 1?
Why not due something scientific and analyze the structure of the cracker and see if it has human cellular structure? I doubt it does. It may seem ridiculous and maybe redundant, but that would be more appealing to me.
Thank you for your cordial discourse.
Citizen Z,
I was either unclear or you misunderstood my point. I was not calling the cracker piercing activities a ‘project’. I used ‘project’ as a term to encompass all of PZ’s activities. For example, the blog, interviews, teaching, etc. If you had read more carefully you would realize that I criticized the cracker piercing because I found it TOO easy. An easy spectacle more worthy of a Bill Donahues than empiricists.
WillG:
Way to miss the point.
How is PZ posting his desecration on his own blog attention seeking?
It’s not like he’s sending out press releases, posting a youtube video and performing his desecration on the steps of city hall.
It’s laughable that these dolts think PZ is doing it for attention.
WillG wrote:
I can’t see it working both ways. I’ll put it as a question: do you think that someone who’s almost all the way toward abandoning the belief in god is going to see some quasi -famous atheist desecrating a cracker and decide that that’s good evidence for the existence of god?
What I have considered possible is that it might make people reluctant to admit their atheism if they’re surrounded by the sort of people the incident has revealed – those who are out there waiting for an excuse to harm someone for not treating their sacred beliefs as sacred.
And that’s just another example of the problems irrational belief systems cause.
“Okay, Lucas, by blatant trolling, you’ve lost the debate by forfeit. Next time come with a coherent argument.
Are there any non-troll theists who wish to have a real debate? Maybe it’s pointless to ask.”
It seems you’re deeply offended. Why are you accusing me of desecrating Meyers’ holy, forgive me, Scientific Communion?
@ WillG #579
The Catholics already have a whole battery of excuses (prepared over centuries because this is hardly a novel test!) for why it will only turn out to be a cracker when analysed.
So what you propose would largely be futile. While a few of the faithful may not yet know the official excuses, they would soon get told by their priest (or equivalent religious apologist) whichever subset of the feeble things they think will adequately con that particular member of the sheeple back into unthinking submission.
Epikt, for Wagner, loud=desirable.
The first article that was in Salon, Was more about the condition of man -not the convictions of Dawkins
john mccain is a cracker.
i find it very revealing that a number of deans of schools of divinity are godless heathens. and, that some who can’t fight their way out of a paper bag believe “gods” are not nothing more than energy anthropomophized.
Wowbagger,
Sorry for the delay, but you make another interesting point. However I can’t see it NOT going both ways. Unfortunately, there is no data to support either hypothesis. I think your point may be valid if the reaction of people to PZ’s stunt trends along the same lines as negative campaign ads. By this I mean attacking an opponent seems to work better than praising your candidate. Think swift boat ads. I also do not think Catholics are: “are out there waiting for an excuse to harm someone for not treating their sacred beliefs as sacred.” Maybe they get pissed off and vent by making idle threats. Perhaps some fringe Muslims would do something more rash.
This question basically boils down to what is the best way to convince someone that one of two opposing views (atheism/theism) should be adopted. I think you are incorrectly assuming that because PZ has exposed some seedier aspects of Catholicism, weak adherents will not only leave Catholicism BUT ALSO find Atheism appealing. What if these people leave Catholicism but remain Christian, spiritual, or god forbid new ageists? The stunt in it of itself has failed to offer a palpable reason to find atheism appealing. We already have Penn & Teller for these antics.
My interpretation unfortunately fits with the critique that atheism offers nothing of substance to replace a religion or belief system with. So, I think in the scheme of things, this stunt is foolish if not selfish because it undermines the general trajectory of the movement. PZ was very successful in rallying the troops of atheism so to speak. I still doubt this stunt materially expanded the movement. Now if atheists prefer this “persecuted minority” status then this is a great strategy. Atheism will also remain a reactive movement.
John Morales,
I am sorry I have missed your point as well.
Steve_C,
I think you have willingly put your head in the sand if you believe Pharyngula (and most other blogs) is not a method of public dissemination of ideas. This whole uproar, PZ’s quasi-celebrity (I had never heard of him before the blog),and your ability to comment disprove your point. This act was more about the Image and the messenger than about the message itself. A pity.
SEF,
I figured as much. I hope I did not imply I came up with this idea in my earlier post. I would add that desecrating an important symbol (this is a problematic term because I think the host may be something more to Catholics) to a group of people is hardly original either.
The thing which was more different about PZ’s act was that it was intended to highlight that Catholics were already behaving badly and ridiculously and disproportionately over an imagined slight of the same kind but lesser extent. He wasn’t “starting it” and he intentionally wasn’t making an original point. It was all about old points and important points of (US) law which the Catholics were trying to overturn by their whinging.
Their proper course of action would have been to excommunicate Webster Cook if what he did was so unforgiveable (though this makes a mockery of the church themselves apparently also sending out consecrated crackers to parishioners who can’t attend). It was only an internal “crime” and therefore should have been dealt with internally. Though note that this is already a tacit admission from them that their god doesn’t exist (and that they secretly know he doesn’t exist) to do this sort of thing for himself.
But they didn’t. They dishonestly whinged to outside authorities, making false accusations and pretending something was a real crime in the real world when it wasn’t. Equally disgusting is that the Catholics there seem to have been collectively lying about the actual assault on Webster Cook at the time by one of their own hasty and violent members; because the authorities failed to pursue the only real crime which took place (for lack of witnesses / evidence?).
I doubt that, both ways.
Differences between science and religon:
Science is a method for systematically gaining understanding of the world. Religion is a set of dogmatic claims about the existence.
Science is proved to work. No religion is proved.
So the difference in believing in science and believing in religion is the difference between believing in a proved method and believing in unproved claims.
PZ, you wrote, “It also makes Salon look foolish, that they would put an article written by someone with a patent grudge front and center.” I just thought I’d mention that it could be (of course, this is only another guess) that the reason they put it on prominent display is because of the foolishness of what the article says.
You have humiliated my state Mr. Myers by your action this is a state of tolerance not of bigotry. I will be writing a letter requesting you be investigate for misconduct in the classroom. Your bigoted stances show to me that you are definitely using your class room as a pulpit.
Sheesh, the idiots are out in force this weekend!
Peter Irving – what the hell are you talking about? Far be it from you to explain what you’re mad about, huh? What action? What bigoted stances? And what evidence do you have that he’s ‘using his classroom as a pulpit’? You’re not referring to something you’ve found here on his private, completely-separate-from-classroom blog, are you?
Mega-FAIL!
eh. at this point, I bet the admin guys at the university are filtering out everything with the words “Myers” and “intolerance” in it :-p