By now most of you have heard about the seemingly neverending saga involving atheist science blogger PZ Meyers and a communion wafer. Apparently some kid failed to eat the wafer as instructed, causing Catholic extremists to go apeshit (including the now-obligatory death threats). To underline the point, Meyers announced long in advance that he would do something VERY VERY BAD to a communion wafer. If, as Meyers surmised, activist Catholics are only a few steps removed from the radical mullahs that we are told to hate with every fiber of our being, then death threats and attempts to disrupt his job and his personal life would follow. To his credit “crunchy con” Rod Dreher saw through the trap (via):
I was thinking last night what the proper Christian response is. If you think about it, P.Z. Myers has done far more to damage himself than anything any of us might do. With his Satanic pride and diabolical act, he has put himself in serious danger of hell — and that’s far worse than any worldly sanction we might (justly) [?? — ed.] see applied to him…
But what would he do if the response to his hideous blasphemy is … love? What would he do if Catholics and other Christians, and even sympathetic members of other faiths, turned up en masse on his campus simply to pray quietly for him? What kind of witness would that be to the wider culture? How might that make straight the path to salvation for P.Z. Myers, and many who now admire him? Wouldn’t that be blessing those who persecute you, as Christ commands us to do?…
Let’s provide a counterwitness for what faithful Christianity is capable of. God may work a miracle in that man’s life yet (consider the example of Saul). Let’s not get in the way of the work of redemption in this lost man’s life. As much as we can, let’s answer hate with love…
If Dreher’s advice won the day then I think most would agree that Meyers lost his gambit. In failing to provoke the Christianist hordes Meyers would have looked like an asshole. Fortunately for Meyers’s point Dreher’s resolve didn’t last.
If we’re better than the Islamic menace it’s because we have people like PZ Meyers, not because of insecure dominionists who can’t resist expanding their parochial brief to cover believers and non-believers alike.
calipygian
For Fuck’s Sake, he didn’t SHIT on the cracker! If that cracker were actually Jesus, you’d think it would be used to having nails driven through it.
bootlegger
I have a picture from here in Europe of me taking a bite out of a prone, i.e. dead, christ icon. Does that count?
El Cruzado
I’m saying it as someone who’s on PZ Meyers side on this debate, but it’s not having someone like PZ Meyers that makes us better, but rather that we stand for the rights of our PZ Meyers both in theory and (mostly) in practice.
guttaperk
Your position doesn’t seem to be particularly logical. Neither a rude attack on religion nor its rude defense seem foundational to the construction of a civil, secular society.
I would defend the right to do either, but would deride both as being arguably-permissible-but-definitely-improper- like defaecating on a national flag, or shouting obscenities at a public official during formal proceedings.
The banning of such things is often problematic, but the actions themselves are seldom worth defending.
Nor does it seem reasonable to judge Christians harshly on the basis of that subset that sent death threats. Any large, homogenous group of people contains those of similar mindset. People who burn flags or even criticise politicians publicly receive similar attentions. Obama and McCain critiques and defenses often stray well into the frothing inane- with no firm generalisation about Americans being provable on that basis.
Just because some Christians are illogical in defense of their symbols does not justify illogic in counterattack!
w vincentz
I am so very saddened that those which were intructed to “love each other” as they “love God” repeatedly twist the wisdom of Jesus’s words to justify their hatred.
And, before you ask, no I’m not a believer in any religion.
They are all corrupt. The outside of the cup is indeed beautiful, but the inside is filled with putrid filth.
Sadly, no religion demonstrates to their faithful a path to spiritual living and an approach to God.
Their actions only demonstrate such.
“Woe to you hippocrates!”
Tim F.
Allowing people like Meyers means that we will have people like Meyers. Blasphemy is a living illustration of freedom of religion.
However, as to whether the militant atheists are a productive force, no. Dawkins and Hitchens piss me off almost as badly as the Christianists because God is by definition outside of rational experience. Making rational arguments either for or against strike me as an equally pointless waste of time.
bootlegger
Also, the ethical codes to which those who want to fire PZ refer apply only to his role as a member of the faculty. They do not apply to what he does in his own time. Does anyone want their bosses dictating what they do in their own private time?
Lihtox
Meyers is no hero here (though those who threaten him are vile). His call for people to steal the Host is disrespectful. I know it’s hard for atheists to appreciate this because they do not (typically?) believe in sacred objects, but respect for other people does not require understanding, merely compassion. I (a white man) don’t have any problem with referring to people as “black” or “chairman” (as opposed to “chairperson”), but if someone else does then I will try to avoid those terms when talking to them.
Anyone who calls themself “humanist” ought to know that human values differ from person to person, and anyone who rails against the absolutism of religion ought to avoid their own absolutism. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God; Science can’t even disprove the notion that the world was created last Tuesday. We may all be brains in jars, and maybe in my jar that “cracker” you see is the Son of God.
The Other Steve
Atheists?
I’m a Presbyterian, and I can’t even begin to understand the outrage over something so petty. Taking communion isn’t about the cracker and the wine, it’s about the act itself.
Yeah, i really don’t see the point of PZ Myers purposefully trying to piss people off. The point of freedom of religion is to stay the fuck out of each others lives. But the only way his statements gain power is if you go off like an unhinged raving lunatic.
calipygian
Technically, only believers can commit blasphemy. PZ isn’t committing blasphemy, he’s being an asshole.
Not that there’s anything wrong with pissing off the likes of Bill Bennett and K-Lo.
It proves they have more in common with al-Qaeda than they’d like to admit.
Grendel72
It is a cracker. Delusion deserves no respect, and is entirely different from immutable characteristics like race, gender or sexuality.
People who believe in ignorant superstitions are capable of coming to their senses and dealing with the real world as it actually exists, nobody can change their race. More to the point, though, someone being of a different race, gender or sexuality from you causes you no harm. Somebody believing in primitive bloodthirsty superstition to the extent they would threaten a student who was the victim of a physical assault is clearly dangerous.
mcmillan
I was actually critical of PZ’s first post, since it was an example of how he can be somewhat childish when it comes to religion. However the resulting response just served to make PZ’s point as you say. It was especially bizarre to see the passive agressive comments like along the lines of “it’s a good thing you only insulted the nice Catholics and not those mean Muslims that would try and kill you for blasphemy”. According to PZ he hasn’t heard from any Muslims complaining about the Koran desecration that was added to the circus.
I do find Dreher’s comments that you quoted pretty condescending. It seems to imply Christians shouldn’t respond since that might make it more likely for atheists to convert. Along with most other atheists I’ve seen, my reasons for giving up religion simply had to do with the fact that it didn’t make any sense to me. Most of us only care about religion to the extent that we see it interfering with our lives.
maxbaer (not the original)
The fundamentalist secularists are as bad as the religious kind. That said, Dreher’s piece is idiotic. He uses examples of vandalism where laws are clearly broken and equates them to incidents which hurt his feelings. A pox on both.
Aaron Baker
I was so pleased with my own rejoinder to Dreher that I’ll reproduce it here:
Mr. Dreher:
Though I think that going out of one’s way to offend the pious is, on the whole, a pretty pointless exercise, I want to object as strongly as I can here to any suggestion that P.Z. Myers be fired over this incident. You’re free to believe, if you like, that a wafer is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, or that if you paint your backside blue and wave it at the moon, you’ll have abundant crops. But you have no right to end the career of someone who ridicules either belief. And how does destroying a host differ from blaspheming the Holy Spirit, or saying you’re an idiot for cherishing unsubstantiated beliefs? Exactly what unacceptable line does it cross? It seems to me the only difference is this: these actions cause you different degrees of offense. Well, I venture to suggest that offense is nothing when weighed against freedom of speech, as conservatives are usually ready to agree when some offensive expression that they approve is at issue.
harlana pepper
Anybody who would do something VERY VERY BAD to a communion wafer gots no class.
harlana pepper
Anybody who would do something VERY VERY BAD to a communion wafer gots no class. Also, they has way too much time on their hands.
Elvis Elvisberg
I feel the same way about this that I did about the Muhammad cartoon controversy– why do something inconsiderate designed to piss people off about something very important to them?
And, of course, that inconsiderate act shouldn’t be forbidden.
Dreher’s idea is a nice one, but you know that a vocal minority of any group will be incapable of that kind of adherence to what Jesus taught in the face of provocation.
Svensker
As a Protestant Christian, I don’t believe that the “cracker” becomes the actual body of Jesus during the Eucharist. But I do find Meyer’s act uncivilized and rude. The fact that some people reacted badly to his act does not excuse his own disrespect of other people’s beliefs and dignity.
I would feel the same way if he went into a Buddhist home and drew mustaches on an ancestor shrine.
His was not act of caring, compassion or respect. It was deliberately rude and hurtful. He may have the right to be an asshole, but that doesn’t mean I have to praise him for his boorishness.
bud
The point for Myers (not “Meyers”) as far as my understanding was not to incite the crazies and say “look see, they’re all crazy!!”, but to ridicule religious nuttery in general and what happened to the student in particular.
He wouldn’t have “won” if all the catholics turned up on his campus and prayed for him. He would’ve found it just as inane as all the death threats and what not (though less hypocritical naturally). In fact, he got many emails with loving intent praying for his soul. He dismissed those ought right as well.
There was NO GAMBIT. It was neither fortunate for Myers that events turned out the way it did, nor would it have been unfortunate for him with another outcome.
grumpy realist
Uh, remember this all started when that kid slipped the (consecrated) host in his pocket and got a) assaulted, b) threatened with death, c) threatened with expulsion from his university.
And how many people like Dreher stood up against the lunatics baying for blood THEN?!
If you want respect for your beliefs, you gotta give it back…..
w vincentz
@ Elvis,
I think you summed it up.
To me, demonstrating respect encourages reciprocity.
On the other side, disrespect only incites hatred.
Hence, “Turn the other cheek.”
Jody
PZ’s final post on the issue is a far better argument for his position than any forum comment could be.
Further, he was not ‘being an asshole’. He was challenging Donohue’s naked power grab. Had Donohue not been confronted head on, you can rest assured he’d do it again, but with more momentum. It most likely won’t be anyway, but next time won’t have the same gravity largely thanks to PZ making a stink about it. He even deflected attention away from the guy who got caught in their sites in the first place.
The way to handle a bully is to get up in their face. And PZ handled it just fine. Anything else is concern trolling.
jcricket
As a religious person who finds Catholic traditions odd myself, I would still be respectful of their traditions (you won’t find me stealing Communion wafers). But I find it mind-boggling the level of response from so-called Catholics. Trying to get him fired? Yeah, you’ll come out smelling like roses from that.
At any rate, PZ is one of my favorite science writers, but the unnecessary baiting of religious folks is a distraction from other valuable work he’s doing on biology and attacking creationists (a deserving target, because they’re trying to work their lunacy into schools, not just peacefully practicing their religion at home).
tim
Couldn’t agree more, Tim.
This whole Jesus in a cracker flap has been solidly entertaining, though.
Incertus
Bingo. And it’s a public university, as I recall–University of Central Florida. Religion is privileged like nothing else in this country, which is painfully ironic seeing as we actually have a Constitutional Amendment that puts a separation between church and state into practice.
littlebird
Pfft. Dawkins pisses me off because he’s a frigging zoologist trying to pass himself off as an evolutionary biologist, and because his books consistently contain gems such as claiming that dolphins and bats navigate using radar.
Scientifically-speaking, he talks out of his ass far less often than ID counterparts like Behe, but that’s some pretty faint praise.
Fr33d0m
While I’m inclined to treat a cracker like a cracker, I’m not so inclined to disrespect anyone else’s belief system.
That said, PZ gets the benefit of the doubt here. I’ve seen nothing indicating that I should give respect to the likes of Donohue, quite the contrary–he has burned that bridge.
PZ has nothing to equal the bullhorn Donohue has. His simple act only allowed the true nature of the problem to be on display. What is truly sad is not so much that so many see this as disrespectful, but that so many would rather call out PZ than those who threatened him.
MeDrewNotYou
Tim-
God may be outside rational experience, but rational experience can point to God. Looking at how the Universe works, for example, may provide evidence of certain principals that look like design (whether or not they actually were designed and not a result of happenstance is another qestion).
Assuming that what we experience is evidence of a creator, creating a rational argument that incorporates that possible evidence is no more a waste of time that theorizing about atomic structure. (Although arguing about atomic structure is probably a lot more fruitful.)
I say this as a Deist, though, so I guess I’m a little biased.
Evilbeard
What if my religion demanded that I desecrate communion wafers? Would it be ok then since I would only be following the dictates of my religion?
4tehlulz
That would just make you Jewish
/snark
Blue Raven
I’m beginning to wonder if I am the only pagan who comments here at all. That said, I am of the opinion that PZ is being a simpleton and a rabble-rouser. I was raised Roman Catholic and old enough to be aware that it used to be forbidden to chew the wafer or touch it with your own hands after it was consecrated. There are plenty of Catholics left who know this intimately. And the logic of the magic inherent in transubstantiation is the logic of representational magic, not science. So PZ stepped into a system that uses different rules than his own and tried to mess with it. He knew them well enough to get the reaction he’d hoped.
Where the Dreher reaction failed miserably was investing too much into the symbol of the transaction between believer and god. Is that link so tenuous a piece of metal would cause pain to Yeshua/Jehova if it were pierced? That is not quite on par with current church doctrine, as chewing is acceptable. I don’t see where PZ’s desired action should’ve netted him more than a “our god is larger than one wafer” shoulder-shrug. That would be the sign of a mature faith. It bugs me when I hear people clamber up the standing stones in Europe like they’re any old boulder, but in the same way I wouldn’t want to see them rappelling down the Eiffel Tower without permits and proper equipment. It damages the item in question and it can’t be replaced. A single wafer isn’t Stonehenge.
Koz
Clearly as a matter of giving public offense, he was intending to participate in a public debate in his own way, and as such he _was_ acting as a member of the UM faculty.
b. hussein canuckistani
“If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him.” Buddhists should be happy for a bit of iconoclasm.
I think PZ stood up for that poor kid in an admirable way, and I’d stand beside him in a minute if people started issuing death threats and fatwas because some other sacred cow wasn’t treated with “appropriate respect”. Religious freedom means that sometimes you get subjected to criticism. No one will stop you from believing a piece of bread is the flesh of your dead god, but the rest of us don’t have to nod with solemn respect if you threaten people with death for not believing your nonsense.
calipygian
Everything I have ever written on any website or bulletin board has been on my personal computer and over internet connections I have paid for and not on a government or military computers or networks. What I write and say here or anywhere does not reflect on the federal government or the military, when I was active duty.
You fail miserably, Koz.
Tsulagi
All this over a freaking cracker? One that just may to lower the cost be manufactured in commie China?
I’m all for freedom of choice, but I’m thinking the commies may have been on to something in banning all this religious shit. Way too many loonies on way too many sides of aisles. You got idiots checking the skies waiting for the Rapture elevators to descend blissfully content that non-believers will be screwed, and you got assholes picking out names for their 72 virgins reward. For those pencil dicks with ED, may their virgins be as tight as the Grand Canyon.
Even the non-loonies take their religion too seriously. Hell, I think even my mother hasn’t fully forgiven me yet for intentionally getting kicked out of Sunday school when I was a kid. Lighten up, people.
capelza
It’s a fucking wafer of flour and water…!!!! It’s not even a cracker!
It’s a tacky thing, mass produced (unless you go to one of those “crunchy” churches that make their own much better bread), a pitiful thing to “worship”…
Over at Crooked Tmiber, someone and I wish i could remember their name said that all the people like Donahue and the others whinging to high heaven have “fatwa envy”…it is so true.
Genine
No, you’re not. **waves**
Though, I am not really Pagan anymore… I don’t have a name for my beliefs. I was raised by a very religious Christian family. Years ago I was Wiccan, then a witch, then a pagan then… moved to other things. I studied many religious, metaphysics and quantum physics to come to what I do now. As I learn now, that also changes.
But anyway, I agree that many people vest way too much in symbols rather than the actual spirit or magic behind them. Just as they sometimes vest too much into (someone else’s) words rather than their own experience.
Btw, I think there are two others (that I know of) that identify as Pagan or Wiccan on this board.
You’re not alone! :)
w vincentz
capelza,
Perhaps Keebler or Nabisco could step up and make them with chocolate chips of oatmeal raisin.
Who cares?
If you don’t, too bad. If some others DO, allow them their faith.
No need for ridicule and disrespect.
capelza
W vincentz…don’t assume I am not Catholic (though now affiliated with the Episcopalians with their women priests and their wafers, which as I said, are not dabs of pressed dried paste in my church) and I am telling any other Catholic that gets their underwear in a bunch over this needs to BUCK UP.
Really, it is embarrassing. And it is only a dried dab of wheat paste…surely Christ did not intend that the “body of christ” would be something so insincere and mass produced. I have always found that appalling. That and that awful, nasty Bill Donahue and every other Catholic who gets upset about this trifling and not more important things..and I am not even mantioning the handling of the abusive priests.
So don’t act all butt hurt over this, it just proves PZ’s point. Why is that not obvious. Hey, there is a sale on them at echurchdepot.com. Only 5.53 for a bag of 250? Get them while they’re hot!
Rome Again
Ahhhhh, my favorite subject:
1. I don’t want any crazy religionists silently praying to their make believe god to work some sort of unwelcomed spirit working a “miracle” in my life… no thanks, I didn’t ask for it, I didn’t want it, and I find the idea revolting and vehemently opposed to the freedom I choose to make my own choices in MY LIFE.
2. Let’s do take a look at
SaulPaul, shall we? (be sure to check out chapters 8-14 in this page as well, they all deal with the spuriousSaulPaul).I don’t take too kindly to some spirit-filled crazy people thinking they should listen to an ancient con-man and then have the right to impose his values on everyone around them. Whoever termed them “American Jihadi” was right. ARGH!
bago
Don’t want to be an american jihadist,
Don’t get as much tail as a blown up wahhabist.
All I get’s a stupid fucking cracker,
Not even a virgin to deflower.
Ken
MeDrewNotYou. Oy boy here comes the “intelligent design” Why don’t you just throw the molotov cocktail and say evolution is flawed.
Genine
I totally agree with you there. I have some Christian friends who used to do that with me. They stopped and/or they’re not my friend anymore.
The argument I used to hear was “You’re against someone PRAYING for you!?” I explained no, it was the reason I found insulting.
If I was sick or something happened and my Christian friends say they’ll pray for me. That’s nice. Its a lovely thought and positive energy is good. But praying for me because I don’t believe what you believe just pisses me off and is very insulting and condescending.
Some understood the difference and respected my request (still my friends) and some didn’t see any difference and thought I was “evil” or “misguided”. (No longer in my life.)
I have some New Thought Christian friends that see no problem with what I or anyone else believes. So they don’t care one way or the other.
J.D. Rhoades
Am I the only one who thinks that if you replaced this story with one about someone getting death threats for walking out of a mosque with a Koran, it’d be in a dozen wingnut e-mail blasts with a snarky subject line about “Religion of Peace, huh???”
Krista
Really? I knew about the chewing, but I didn’t know about the hands thing. In the churches I attended growing up, they always put the wafer into your cupped hands, and you then put it in your own mouth.
Jeez, no wonder I gave up on Roman Catholicism — they’re just making that shit up as they go along, aren’t they?
reboho
Actually, this is what Dawkins and Hitchens are arguing. Believers try bringing their god into rational experience (unIntelligent Design or creationism are prime examples).
That is the crux of the call out of believers as being delusional. If they left their god in the spiritual realm and didn’t try to point to literal or real manifestation then no atheist would have anything about which to complain.
Dawkins, Myers, Hitchens et al are simply calling them on the irrationality of trying to bring their god into rational experience. By your own statement is clearly a waste of time. But if it is a waste of time, why don’t you name theists as well as atheists? By only naming atheists are you not demonstrating the very bias that seems to continue to enable delusional theists?
Matt
However, as to whether the militant atheists are a productive force, no. Dawkins and Hitchens piss me off almost as badly as the Christianists because God is by definition outside of rational experience. Making rational arguments either for or against strike me as an equally pointless waste of time.
That seems to rather miss the point. The “militant atheists”* could be a very useful group in resisting the ongoing efforts of people like Donohue, Dobson, Hagee, etc., to force their particular and narrow religious beliefs on everyone else through the use of political clout. Atheists, militant or otherwise, are fluffy damn bunnies compared to that lot.
I suspect that most of them understand that rational arguments FOR the existence of God don’t actually exist and, as such, don’t really require a response other than “Prove it.” There are no rational arguments for or against the existence of Thor, but I do not have to take believers seriously.**
*(Militant? Really? Who’d they invade or bomb lately in the name of atheism? To whom did they issue death threats for NOT harassing a wafer?)
**(Were I actually confronted by axe-wielding Vikings, I would take them very seriously indeed. At least until they left.)
Koz
Of course, but that’s not the issue here.
The whole thing would be a nonissue if it were about what he wrote or said, it’s what he _did_ that makes the difference. And you know damn well that your CO could bust you for things you might do off-base, and some of them don’t even have to be against the law.
Koz
Of course, but that’s not the issue here.
The whole thing would be a nonissue if it were about what he wrote or said, it’s what he _did_ that makes the difference. And you know damn well that your CO could bust you for things you might do off-base, and some of them don’t even have to be against the law.
steveh
Frankly, I learned an important lesson from PZ, whom I whoheartedly disagree with on his approach to battling the fundementalist scourge.
Incertus
A good chunk of the responses Myers received were along the lines of “you don’t have the balls to do that to a Koran.” He got two of them, tore pages out of one, added some pages from The God Delusion, a banana peel, some coffee grounds, and a cracker with a nail through it and took a picture. And I applauded.
Incertus
And what exactly did he do that would constitute a firing offense? Is his research insufficient? Does he not publish enough? Is his teaching being questioned? No–he blogged about the absurdity of the Catholic League’s response to a kid who took a communion wafer.
Notorious P.A.T.
You really think that?
If you don’t believe in radiocarbon dating, then I guess you don’t believe in radioactive decay. If you don’t believe in radioactive decay, then I guess you don’t have a problem with nuclear waste being stored in your basement.
Notorious P.A.T.
Then I suppose you have examples of secularists threatening the lives of religious believers.
That’s absurd. It doesn’t even make sense on its own terms, let alone a wider plane of discussion.
Chuck Butcher
I’ll be damned if I can see the difference between atheism and any other faith based religion. Since there is no empirical evidence there is or is not a god it all comes down to faith and belief. That is either a crock or isn’t, but you sure can’t prove it – either side of that cat fight.
I don’t do religion and I don’t kick around those who do. I’ll kick around assholedom anytime. Blaming religion because some people are assholes using religion as a cover for being mean hateful fucktards (tm. Carla Axtman – read her) is about as smart as blaming Political Activism for George W Bush.
I spent 20 of my 55 years as an agnostic, 20 years ago as a part of sobering up I did something else which hopefully escapes definition. Since I’m still clean and sober it evidently hasn’t hurt me much.
I took a swipe at writing about it last month, a piece that sat in ‘draft’ for a year and change before I finished it.
gil mann
(rubs temples)
Atheism. Is not. A religion. It’s right there in the name.
I gotta come up with an untestable hypothesis one of these days. Those go right into the catbird seat.
Scott H
Religionists haven’t damaged my faith, but they’ve managed to turn me completely against religion. That Dreher had to labor at persuading his fellows to respond with love, although he seems to have abandoned that spiritual cause in favor of more primal impulses, is rather unfortunately self-exposing.
chopper
dang. only a few weeks ago it seems we were eulogizing carlin and his penchant for pointing out the idiocy of mainstream religion. now we’re back to wagging our fingers about how ‘rude and uncivilized’ it is for some dude to ‘defame’ a friggin’ cracker.
what a country.
Shygetz
OK, everyone who thinks Myers stepped out of line for disrespecting the beliefs of the Catholics, raise you hand.
Now, of all of you with your hands raised, how many of you refrain from eating beef out of respect for the Hindu belief that cows are not to be slaughtered?
Myers did his stunt as a form of protest against the Catholic overreaction (and alleged assault) when Webster Cook took a consecrated host he was given back to his seat to show his friend. Webster Cook had a reason for taking the cracker he was given, Myers had a reason for desecrating the cracker he was given, just like you have a reason for eating beef contrary to the religious wishes of the Hindus. Unless you plan on swearing off beef, and also adhering to every religious taboo out there in deference to every religious belief out there, then how can you consistently denounce what Myers (and by extension, Cook) did?
And unless you have evidence that Myers called for people to steal the cracker, rather than take what was freely given by the priest, you should refrain from accusing people of crimes.
Both Hitchens and Dawkins say in their writings and speeches that, if you believe in a God that has no rational basis or consequences, then they can’t touch you (and really don’t care); god as impersonal, uninfluential and unmeasurable being that just “exists” is left unscathed by them. They argue against that vast majority that think that God does real, observable, measurable things in this world (creationists, faith healers, God-as-hurricane-maker, etc.) Once you drag your god(s) into the rational world and make materialistic claims about it, your god is just as subject to rational inquiry as anything else.
I have astrally projected myself to Pluto and talked with the little green men there. Since there is no empirical evidence that I have or have not, it all comes down to faith and belief and you must hold yourself a Shygetz-astral-walk agnostic…or, you could hold the rational position that the burden of proof lies with the positive claim. Atheists (for the most part) are not saying “God cannot exist”, they are saying “There is no reason to believe God exists”.
toujoursdan
I agree that atheism/anti-theism are not religions but they are ideologies, and ideologies can have intolerant fundamentalisms just as easily as religions do.
I agree that one can’t arrive at God through rational or logical thinking, but the human mind is capable of arriving at very sane truths through intuitive and non-rational methods. In fact, we depend on this kind of information processing for our very survival. The mistake both religious fundamentalists and a/anti-theists make is to limit valid truths to only what kind be arrived at through logical and rational thinking, IMHO.
b. hussein canuckistani
Can you see the difference between these two statements?
1) I believe there is no god.
2) I do not believe in any god.
Can you see how one statement is an act of irrational faith and the other is not? I don not believe in any god, whether Shiva, Buddha, Jesus or Batman, and I will not believe until I see some evidence.
Matt
I agree that atheism/anti-theism are not religions but they are ideologies, and ideologies can have intolerant fundamentalisms just as easily as religions do.
How, precisely, do you posit that I hold a negative ideology? It’s not a belief in the non-existence of God: it’s a lack of belief in its existence. The difference is subtle in the language, but clear in the concept.
I don’t spend my time disbelieving invisible, undetectable unicorns under my bed. Why should I? And why would that possibly make me an anti-invisible-unicorn fundamentalist?
Matt
I don not believe in any god, whether Shiva, Buddha, Jesus or Batman, and I will not believe until I see some evidence.
Batman is so gonna kick your ass. Just you wait.
Bruce Baugh
Context matters in stuff like this. A poor person who laughs at the follies of the rich isn’t doing the same thing as Rush Limbaugh or George Will mocking poor people for being stupid defectives. Those without much social power have always used satire, mockery, and the like to criticize those who can crush them like bugs in direct confrontations, seeking a measure of justice otherwise denied to them. This is not the same thing as the winners seeking to humiliate those they’ve already defeated.
American Catholicism is a big diverse thing, and some parts of it are very much on the outs – the sanctuary movement comes to mind. But there’s also the particular faction that Bill Donahue is an attack dog for, that isn’t on the outs at all. Five of the Supreme Court justices are Catholic, and as a group they are the most reliably anti-democracy, anti-labor, anti-women, anti-liberty voices on the court. In a world with better popes and cardinals they’d be denied communion for their views on the death penalty, but it’s not news that the Catholic establishment worries ever so much more about fetuses than about already born people when it comes to suffering and death. The government infiltrates and wiretaps Catholic peace efforts and professional organizations for dangerous radicals like scientists, but the social clubs for folks like the justices. They help hold the reins of power.
It’s worth remembering sometimes that the Constitution explicitly says there shall be no religious test for holding office. And yet in practice, an honest atheist like Dr. Myers is effectively barred from office – when asked, the public at large says they’d be more likely to elect a pagan like me or more Muslims like Rep. Ellison than an atheist. In the overwhelming majority of electoral districts, some vanilla Christianoid confession is the absolutely necessary price of power. The Original Dads had some thoughts on taxation without representation that apply here; in practice, anyone like Dr. Myers must live with the reality of being governed by people who routinely express the view that he’s a mutant freak who probably isn’t a good American at all.
Life as a non-Christian is sometimes not great fun, but there are real procedures for chaplains with beliefs like mine for both the military and prisons, and a body of case law and regulations covering discrimination on the basis of beliefs like mine. Dr. Myers is protected by tenure now, but that’s about it – he’s far more hung out to dry on many fronts than the pagans, Buddhists, and other religious deviants among us.
Over on Crooked Timber, John Emerson compared the kind of demonstration Dr. Myers engaged in to the kind of trespass you sometimes have to do to preserve a claim on an easement. If you don’t keep violating efforts at fencing in an area, you lose your right to assert a preexisting customary access. The more I think about this, the more it seems right to me. America isn’t supposed to be a society that tolerates a lot of religious creeds; it’s supposed to be a secular society on every official front, where the lack of belief and lack of interest in belief are just as welcome and appropriate as any belief. There’s a subset of Christendom committed to abolishing that secular society. They must be opposed. And they must be mocked for their folly as well as for their un-American ambitions.
So I’m not going to do anything at all to pressure Dr. Myers one bit about this. He has every right to do what he did, and the fact that so many people find it shocking is an indictment of how poorly protected the idea of a secular America is. The right of self-expression extends exactly as much to demonstrates of disbelief as it does to the exposition of any creed, and believers aren’t gauranteed any more freedom from offense in public life than unbelievers are.
Also, I’ll believe that Bill Donahue is a genuine loose cannon the very moment a bishop or someone higher in authority requires him to perform any act of public contrition.
John M
If I can be so self-centered ask to ask, what about me? I’m a practicing, believing Catholic. I also happen to disagree with Bill Donahue about 90 percent of the time, and think he’s an ill-mannered clown 100 percent of the time. That said, I take my faith seriously, and I guess I would ask Professor Myers what I did to offend him. A lunatic fringe of my religion overreacted to the original act and has acted intemperately toward Myers. In response, he has taken an action that is offensive to all believing Catholics, the vast majority of whom have done nothing to him or Cook and wouldn’t condone death threats or anything of the sort. It’s fine that PZ Myers thinks Bill Donahue and his fellow travelers are crackpots and assholes. I agree with him. My problem with Myers is that he used a bazooka to kill a mosquito.
It’s always amazing to me that many of the same people who criticize the Catholic Church for being too hierarchical are so eager to treat Bill Donahue, a lone crackpot, as the voice of the Catholic Church. Bill Donahue isn’t the Pope, isn’t my pastor, and doesn’t have any official role in the Church beyond the one that I have: parishoner. Yet the acts of literally a handful of people justify an act that is intentionally offensive to all believers in a faith with a billion or so adherents? Give me a break. Donahue is indefensible. So is Myers.
P.S. to several above: Catholics aren’t “fundamentalists.”
Observer
If I take a hard stance on something unprovable then it’s based on my belief/bias. Believing that an untestable something (is) or (is not) true just says something about my psychology.
My favorite examples are religious and atheist scientists. Someone who’s truly objective would be agnostic on pretty much any topic until it becomes testable.
Still, being agnostic doesn’t mean we’re obligated to take the topic seriously…
Shygetz
Cue your apology to the Hindus in 3…2…1…
Matt
Sir! I contend that there are invisible, undetectable unicorns under your bed! No test that you perform will find them. When informed of this, my response will be that they’re really there; they’re just hiding. I will also state that they are taking an active role in your life, possibly rearranging your furniture while you sleep (they put it all back in the same place before you wake up).
If, after all this, you’re still agnostic on the invisible-unicorn dilemma, then there’s a problem.
It is important to keep an open mind. It is less-recommended to let the wind whistle through it.
Barbara
Myers put himself in the line of fire so that an innocent kid would stop being their target. This is an honored technique by which the relatively strong help out the weak. I am sure I have seen Superman use it.
Anyway, these people either haven’t been to law school or flunked out because they don’t seem able to understand how robbery and defacement of other people’s property are not the same as the “misuse” of wafers that were given to one voluntarily by the priest.
Just an example: If I go into a church and throw blood on a statue of the virgin mary, for sure, I am committing a crime irrespective of my “attitude” or beliefs at the time I am doing it. If however, I am given a little statue of the virgin Mary because I helped at some event on the Feast of the Assumption, and I decide to use it as a sex toy or target practice instead of a prayer aid, I haven’t committed any crimes against the Church because it belongs to me. THEY GAVE IT TO ME!!!
And I don’t remember the Church getting it in writing that when you sidle up to the communion rail, you have to actually EAT the wafer or return it, unused and in good condition. It’s understood that you will consume it on the spot, but that hardly gives legal grounds to claim fraud in the inducement or whatever the heck it is that they are screaming about over there.
In any case, Myers did what he did in defense of someone else, and not simply to provoke a controversy.
Bruce Baugh
John M: At the moment, you’re hosed, just like many other believers of good will. (Though Shygetz is right. Assuming you’re not a vegetarian, when are you going to abolish to Hindus for your daily life-long blasphemy, conducted both at home and out in public?) Your beliefs are convenient handles to power for people who don’t care about you, Jesus, the communion of saints, or much of anything beyond themselves. Your best bet is to hope that secularists win, and to help them do so, so that your church loses so many of its connections to power that it’s no longer seen as a useful political vehicle.
A ruthlessly enforced separation of state and church as institutions would free serious Catholics to live lives that the early apostolic community would find more recognizable. But the big problem isn’t atheists, it’s all your fellow Catholic accomodating heterodox and heretical power-seekers like Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Donahue.
Genine
That’s true to an extent. I know atheists who can be just as judgmental about the views of believers as some believers are about them. The basis for the judgment is different, but its judgment just the same. For atheists the judgment is based on “rationality” and for the believer it is based on “faith”. One is not better than the other. For me, life includes both, plus a lot of other things.
I think Myers went a tad too far with what he did, though I really don’t care one way or the other. I don’t think what he did was wrong because the kid who originally took the wafer was treated horribly and I’m glad Myers stood up for him. The Catholic church isn’t acting very christian at all. I seriously doubt Christ would approve of their actions at all. I even think Jesus would be more on the kid’s side than theirs because they’re acting like
Phariseeshypocrites.However, in reference to the general idea of atheists and believers; In my opinion, it is not necessarily the best idea to act like the very group that you protest. And I’ve seen this happen in a lot of conflicts; not just atheists vs. fundamentalists.
John M
I don’t owe the Hindus any apology. Similarly, PZ Myers doesn’t owe anyone an apology for not believing in transubstantiation or any other Catholic teaching.
Suppose that a member of a Hindu congregation (congregation? I don’t know if that’s the proper term) threatens me for eating a cheeseburger. One response would be to tell him to mind his own business and call the police if I take the threat seriously. Another response, one that presumably PZ Myers would endorse, is that I could set up a grill outside of that person’s Hindu place of worship, and when everyone comes outside after the service, I could yell, “FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING COW WORSHIPPERS! I AM EATING A COW, AND IT IS FUCKING DELICIOUS!” Certainly, that would offend the Hindu who wouldn’t mind his own business, but it also would offend a whole bunch of people who didn’t do anything to me and wouldn’t endorse the behavior of their fellow congregant.
I’m not suggesting that PZ Myers should be prosecuted or fired or anything of the sort. But I’m amazed that so many are willing to defend his uncivil and juvenile behavior. The class of people who take the Eucharist seriously is much larger than the class of people in Bill Donahue’s camp, yet Myers was willing to offend the 99 percent to get revenge on the 1 percent.
Shygetz
The fact that you’re using a computer to convey this message rather than telepathy contradicts your words. Everyone makes judgements, and when it comes to things that really matters (food, water, shelter), almost everyone uses rationality instead of faith. Why? Because it works!
grandpajohn
As a methodist, I find the whole flap hilarious. This has nothing to do with religion it is about catholic window dressing, pomp and puffery. any one who is familiar with the last supper text from the bible is aware that Jesus took BREAD and broke it nothing in there about crackers, so tongue in cheek I say as a methodist then that the Catholics are committing heresy by using crackers rather than bread, which highlights the whole inanity of these raving of lunatics who are always pushing their particular brand of religion on others.
In fact there is no bibical scripture calling for much of the worships forms proscribe by cathoic dogma, God doesnt require that you pray for forgiveness through a priest or that you have to perform pentanence other than confession of your sins
So please don’t label this as a religious thing as a way of attacking all demoninations, most of us protestants find it just as ridiculous as the non-believers do
b. hussein canuckistani
Except for the people who use prayer instead of medicine when their kids get sick of trivially preventable illnesses, and then die. Though I guess it’s possible they just aren’t faithful enough.
Shygetz
Of course you don’t…it’s always different when YOU do it.
Wow, so PZ showed up outside your church and shouted “Fuck you, I’m desecrating a cracker!” Why that’s much different from you committing sacrelige in the privacy of your own home, and then talking about it on the internet like you did just now. Now, if PZ had desecrated a cracker in the privacy of his own home and talked about it on the internet, why, that would be just fine! Right?
Because the other interpretation would be that, since you enjoy commiting tasty sacrelige against Hindu beliefs, you can do it all you want, but if PZ enjoys commiting sacrelige against Catholic beliefs, why, that’s just wrong…because it’s not tasty?
PZ owes you and the other transubstantionists no consideration of your taboos, just as you owe the Hindus no consideration of their taboos or me of mine. Just about every action you could take would offend someone, but I’ll let them worry about their taboos and I’ll worry about mine.
gil mann
You’re half right, although “ideology” connotes at least a handful of adherents, and the anti-theist ranks are awfully thin. I count myself among their number but only since I took a job that allows me the amount of free time it takes to come down really, really hard on one side of an unwinnable argument.
Oh, we’re total dicks, a lot of us, but you’ll notice we don’t make fun of Jews a whole lot, even though we consider their views no less silly than those of Christians. Okay, a little less silly, but the point is, we don’t have to wage war on a constant basis against local school boards to allow ham into the classroom; can’t say the same about science.
And until religious people figure out that respect for their right to practice isn’t the same as respect for their faith, they’re going to continue to mistake disagreement for intolerance. This last part isn’t aimed at anyone here so much as the lady I ran across at a yard sale Saturday afternoon. Long story.
John M
There’s a difference between doing something that incidentally might cause offense, and doing something for the express purpose of causing offense. Eating a hamburger with full knowledge of Hindu beliefs is the former; my hypothetical and the actions of PZ Myers, whether done in full public view or merely in public view on the internet, are the latter. Again, I’m not at all on board with Donahue or with the fundamentalists who try to teach creationism. I’m just surprised that so many people think PZ Myers is acting in a way that people should act.
Genine
Shygetz… what!? I said its a combination of BOTH. among other things. The two concepts aren’t mutually exclusive, you know.
Besides, who is to say what is rational? I have beliefs that I’m sure you and some others would say aren’t rational, yet they happened to me. And it would be irrational of me to say these things do not exist. Just as, based on your experience, it would be irrational of you to think such things exist. We all have our individual experiences.
Anyway, I don’t think there isn’t anything we or science cannot explain- given time. Already there are some scientists that are making some headway in trying to understand how the “irrational” works. We’re just not fully “there” yet.
gil mann
Assuming the double-negative’s unintentional, I think this is the unacknowledged (wow, that word looks weird in print) crux of the matter. Most people don’t agree with you, not by a long shot. The Rationality Police wouldn’t be so prickly if things were otherwise.
NonWonderDog
The Webster Cook incident is apparently a lot more complex than “he wanted to show his friend.” Apparently a student chapter of the local Catholic church receives funds from the student treasury, and Cook, a student senator, was protesting this. He’d actually already filed a complaint against the local Catholic church for violation of campus alcohol policy (lollolol), but that got about as far as you would expect.
You see, the student charter at UCF apparently stipulates that any organization that receives student funds must be open to all students to participate. So, to make a point, Webster Cook went down to the Catholic Church to “participate” in the services, as was his right. He went and sat in the pews, but didn’t rise or kneel when told, didn’t sing along or chant the whatever prayer it is, didn’t do that painful “and also with you” vomitfest (or is that after communion? I’ve forgotten), and made a couple snide comments to his friend. This apparently made some crazy fundy catlick lady angry, and when Cook went up in line to take communion (hey, they can’t deny non-catholic students if they get student funds, right?) the crazy lady started talking to the ushers. She followed him, and when he failed to eat the wafer she grabbed him and tried to force it out of his hand. The ushers came over, separated them, and took Cook off for a little chat. Apparently it didn’t end well (Cook being a giant douche bag), and Webster Cook walked out with the cracker.
All in all, it didn’t work out very well as a protest—especially when he started getting death threats—so he made up some stupid excuse and gave the cracker back. Eventually he was impeached by the student senate for inappropriately representing the senate or something, and now the Dean or someone has threatened him and the friend that was with him with expulsion from his college. None of this paragraph should have needed to be written, so PZ Myers decided to stick up for the guy and deflect a few of the death threats his way.
NonWonderDog
Huh, preview shows two hyphens as an en-dash and three hyphens as an em-dash. Apparently that’s not how the posts work?
1-1 2–2 3—3
Shygetz
Ah, so tasty sacrelige is fine, but sacrelige to make a political point is wrong, wrong, wrong. I understand now. So if PZ had put Cheese Whiz on the host and ate it for snack because it was yummy everything would have been dandy, but since he was trying to make a serious point about the values of members of the Catholic Church and the presence of radicalism within US Catholicism, it was evil. This makes PZ’s violation of Catholic taboos in pursuit of humanism wrong, but your continued casual violation of Hindu taboos in your pursuit of the perfect hamburger a-okay, thus validating both the icky feelings PZ gave you and your love of the Whopper. How convenient.
Faith is mutually exclusive of reason by definition…faith requires unjustified belief, while reason requires all belief be justified by evidence.
As far as “who is to say what is rational”, if you’re looking for one-stop shopping, I would recommend Immanuel Kant, who did excellent work melding empiricism and rationalism that stands as the foundation for modern rational inquiry today. Second, I find it telling that you claim irrational beliefs “happened to you”. Are you not in control of your beliefs, at least nominally?
Finally, individual experience ARE valid data, with an n of one. I have seen monsters in the dark. Yet it would be irrational of me to trust my individual senses when all of the data taken together point to the fact that it is more likely my senses were fooled than it is that there are really ghouls lurking in the dark that no one else can see and that disappear or turn into misshappen lumps of clothing as soon as I turn on the lights. The same reasoning can be applied to all claims of supernatural experiences…which is more likely, that your experience accurately reflects reality and ALL of the other people who have experiences directly contradicting yours are in error, or that the multitudes that observed the same thing as one another are observing reality, and your conflicting observation is in error?
The point of my posts is that, of all of the purported “ways of knowing”, only rational empiricism has a proven track record of being able to accurately predict the future, which is the litmus test of understanding the world. I have no idea if science will ever be able to answer ALL questions, but I sure as hell know that divine revelation, uninformed psychic intuition, etc. have never provided reliable answers to ANY set of questions.
Genine
Yes, it was, sorry. I meant to say that there are things we do not understand now, but in time, we will.
It really isn’t that simple. There are a lot of factors at play as to why one person experiences something another person doesn’t. It doesn’t even have to be in the realm of the natural vs. the “supernatural”. (I hate that word, there is nothing special or supernatural about certain experiences) People often miss or dismiss what doesn’t conform to their view of reality.
And, actually, you have a point that I meant to mention and had not before. Two people can have the same experience and have different explanations for them. One might say “Well this isn’t suppose to exist, so its my mind and/or senses playing tricks on me. ” Or someone else can think otherwise. Its all good to me, I don’t care one way or the other. Diversity of thoughts, feelings and experiences is a good thing, imo.
Grumpy Code Monkey
This point cannot be emphasized enough. PZ didn’t decide to stage this stunt out of the blue; it was the absolutely unhinged response by the Catholic community to what this kid did that inspired it.
Was the kid being a dick? Probably. But does being a dick merit death threats?
And speaking as an atheist who was raised Methodist, the idea that the consecrated host is the literal flesh of Christ (not a symbol, not a stand-in, but the real thing) strikes me as being somewhat…pagan (and that’s without getting into the cannibalism angle). I mean, how can you decry witchcraft when you’re practicing your own form of it?
To quote PZ: “Nothing must be held sacred.”
Shygetz
Keep that in mind when your doctor suggests you get antibiotics to clear up that nasty infection, and your insurance company thinks you should just tough it out. Diversity of thoughts and feeling, eh?
It’s good to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.
It’s not witchcraft, it’s a miracle! See what a good PR department can get you?
Genine
I never said I didn’t go to the doctor or I forgo conventional medicine. I like technology and other things. What’s the problem here? I don’t have anything against convention and I think it has its place, just like everything else.
Some people can blend “rationality” and “non-rationality” just fine in their lives. Some go with 100% “rational” and some go with 100% “non-rational”. There is a lot of room between the two. Its not an either/or thing.
Chuck Butcher
The only bunch I can think of who are more protective of their religion than atheists are fundamentalists. You can yap about unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters til you’re blue in the face, don’t bother McCaining atheism to me, if it’s a matter of “it’s unprovable and unimportant” then you’ve managed agnosticism, atheism is the active disbelief in god and it is exactly as much a theism as any other, it is the religion of “there is no god.” Like I said, I don’t like assholedom, religion is out of my sphere of commentary. I’ve known really swell people of most current religions and non-religions and they seem to be fine and I’ve known a batch of assholes of those same stripes.
I’m perfectly willing to let the whole batch whack at each other, it’s all sophistry and endlessly circular, what ever god it is I believe in is only important to me and irrelevant to others. I do a god for my reasons, who works for me, and I’m incredibly selfish enough to not care to try to spread it around. No religion claims me as a member and I’m fine with that.
I’m a strong supporter of a line of separation between government and religion, for two reasons. Religion and law don’t mix by the very character of the two institutions and government damages religions when it messes about in them.
These things always turn into pissing matches full of strawmen and outrage. Endless fun for the bored. Ultimately pointless.
liberal
Chuck Butcher wrote,
Wrong. While certainly no one can prove god doesn’t exist, belief in god violates Occam’s razor.
Grumpy Code Monkey
This is the reason why you have “militant” atheists like Meierz; other people (read: theists) insist on misrepresenting what atheism is, painting atheists as morally corrupt or outright evil, and frankly we’re getting fucking tired of it. I can’t tell you how many screeds I’ve read that openly call for violence against atheists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in God (or gods). Period. This lack of belief can take on a form of active disbelief, but that is not the case for all atheists.
Agnosticism is the position that the nature of God, including the question of whether or not He exists, is unknowable. One can be an agnostic and choose to believe in God (we can’t know for sure, so I choose to believe) or not (we can’t know for sure, so I choose to not believe).
FWIW, here’s my taxonomy:
1. Weak (negative) atheist — I do not believe in God, because I am not convinced God is real (this is me).
2. Strong (positive) atheist — I do not believe in God, because I am convinced God is not real.
If you want me to respect your beliefs for what they are, then respect my lack of belief for what it is. Don’t tell me what my beliefs are, because quite frankly people like you always get it wrong. I’m not out to destroy your church or your religion. I honestly don’t give a crap what you believe, up to the point that your belief compels you to harass or oppress other people.
I don’t think religion or religious belief should get any special privilege in public discourse, and I think certain religious practices should be open to criticism without fear of death threats.
liberal
Grumpy Code Monkey wrote,
I agree, and AFAICT this is one of Dawkin’s main points in his more recent polemics: that religious beliefs, like other beliefs, should be open to criticism in public discourse.
Matt
Horseshit.