P.Z. Myers and the future of democracy

You know, if Meyers were anything other than a roaring pissant, I might be worried. But he's not. His influence, like ours, does not overarch God's perfect justice. Patience is all that's required.

Thank you Rod. Finally it's been properly said: Myers' carnival act is NOT about religion versus atheism, fundamentally. What he has really achieved is to raise for us the question of common decency. Is it a value worth active protection by our society?

As I've said over and over, Myers and whoever stole the Host for him are subject to penal sanctions for a theft crime. Nobody seems to want to talk about that remedy, because the religion versus atheism aspect is so prominent and people think that this matter is about conflicting private beliefs. It's not; Myers has gone beyond civil argumentation into unprotected territory. He claims a false professorial privilege to commit crimes against the peace, and this issue has become about whether we as a society have the stones to enforce the consequences of those crimes.

Myers is not a peaceful man. He does not want to "just get along" with religious believers. Rather, he wants to step outside the social conventions (whatever their origins) that make this country a habitable place for believers and non-believers alike. Fine! Let him do so, but those of us who prefer civilization are perfectly entitled to seek to protect it from him. He can't drag us all outside the walls of decent society, try as he might; and the University or the prosecutor ought to make an example of him.

In all Christian charity, that is. Seriously. What could be less charitable than simply ignoring him?

Pure projection.

You claim that a piece of unleavened bread can, by the recitation of certain words, be transformed into the actual flesh of an entity last seen on this planet two millenia ago. Even though every material examination of this object before and post transformation reveals no discernible difference. Even though if one were to really take the claim seriously, one is both condoning and performing a cannibal act.

It is an absurd claim, and yet, you demand it be treated with respect, that it be privileged above the interest of a real human being in keeping his job.

And its PZ who's making a power play?

What you are doing here, and what Donohue does every time he opens his mouth, is to assert the power of the Christian community. Don't mess with us, you say, or we'll get your ass fired.

JC

JC - nothing you just said would ever cause me to try to get you fired.

Got that? Nothing you SAID.

You didn't come to my house and steal something I hold sacred.

"All Reason alone gives us is radical subjectivity"

I'm sorry but I don't buy this. Religion also gives subjectivity, there are a thousand different kinds of religion and they all allow a certain measure of pick and choose. Just look at the debate in the anglican church over gay bishops or the variety of different perspectives on abortion. Of course each side claims they are the true christians and have god on their side, but it's completely dependent on the individual.

I don't think P.Z. Meyers is a threat to democracy any more than those who spout off about immigrants or gay. He seems just a different manifestation of those same emotions.

I agree with Rod that acts like these pose a risk for the future of democracy in the US. One problem is that Rod identifies with conservativism, a political movement in the US (hear me out before you dismiss this as a silly partisan smear). Under Bush, we have seen post-modernism take root in policy. Remember:

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

"We create our own reality": Derrida couldn't have put it better.

So if we're going to take Rod seriously in a fight against post-modernism---and that is why I read this blog---the identification with American conservativism, including a consideration of voting for McCain, is a problem. Avoid the Dems, fine, but American conservativism is largely as post-modern as any force in the history of the West.

Junkman, I posted a question on the other combox, but that thread is probably just moving over here, so here it is again. I hope I have not broken any major rule of conduct. I think it has relevance here because now his behavior is evidence of the death of democracy (which, I thought, had to do with how decisions were made by the majority and all that, but please enlighten me if I am wrong). One of the hallmarks of liberal democracy is rule of law instead of rule of the whims of the strong. So:

Does anyone have proof that the wafer in the picture on Myer's blog had been part of a Mass? Other than his word, which, if he is the demonic, evil creature portrayed above, should not be have credibility.

I'm trying to get my head around the legal case. Lawyers here, please help.

Does a parish have to come forward and claim that a Host has gone missing?

How would a legal case be made? No lab test to prove that it is not just a plain old, unblessed wafer.

Are we to believe that someone who obtained a Host at Mass for the professor would come forward to admit it? Even if someone did, wouldn't there have to be some corroborating evidence?

Since Myers can't get a Host from a church himself, how could he know if the wafer had come from a Mass?

What we seem to have is a request from the prof on his blog, a claim that the request was granted, and a picture of a wafer and other items in his trash.

How would one build a case for legal charges?

JC, you are so completely missing the point. You don't have to believe that a consecrated host is the body of Jesus Christ. You can believe that it is the most scientifically and logically ridiculous thing ever said. What a civil society does require of us is precisely that we respect the fact that some things are the strong beliefs of others even when we think they are ridiculous. Part of the basic respect we need to extend to each other in a pluralistic society is that we extend respect to people, even when we don't agree with their belief.

I know people who strongly believe that women should wear head coverings, denim jumpers and never cut their hair. I think this is absurd. It's not a belief which I have any respect for whatsoever. What I do have respect for, however, is the fact that the people who believe this do so sincerely. It is out of my respect for the fact of their belief (not respect for the particulars of their belief), that I would not harass, ridicule or attempt to impede in any way those who hold this particular belief.

I may think that the only proper way to begin a meal is to pause to pray. However, I respect the fact that not only do my atheist friends and family not pray before meals, they would be made uncomfortable if I made a show out of praying before eating or even tried to get them to join me. So out of respect for the basic beliefs of people whose ideas I find ridiculous and unsupportable, when I am with them, I discretely and silently pray in such a way that they may not even be aware of my actions.

The point isn't whether someone else's beliefs deserve respect in the particulars. The point is that the people who hold these beliefs deserve respect. And if we've reached the point where the fact that someone believes something which we find ridiculous is seen as grounds not to afford them basic respect, then that would simply confirm the idea that the culture wars have rendered our liberal democracy untenable. (And yes, I am well aware that this lack of respect moves both ways. However, "he did it first" is a child's argument that any good parent firmly brushes away as completely secondary to the matter at hand.)

Well said, ME. Life in a pluralistic democracy doesn't require you to respect beliefs you find unworthy of respect. It does require you to respect the people who hold them. Your own ability to practice and advocate your beliefs depends on that.

And if we've reached the point where the fact that someone believes something which we find ridiculous is seen as grounds not to afford them basic respect, then that would simply confirm the idea that the culture wars have rendered our liberal democracy untenable.
Posted by: me | July 27, 2008 2:23 PM

I would suggest that the IF part of your IF-THEN clause has not been demonstrated to be generally true of the US as a whole and that perhaps our liberal democracy might not yet be completely untenable.

quote: "There was a time, before 1960, when we had a detente and regularized view of religiosity that you see at Mainline churches and the Catholic church. That level of acceptance and shared values was turned upside down by the "seize power" moment with Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and religious conservatives declared war on the country and suddenly turned every facet of life into a religious test and war."

Daniel,

Do you think the sexual revolution, which came after 1960 and radically changed society, might-just might have had something to do with the actions of religious conservatives since the mid to late 1970s? Honestly, without the sexual revolution, which let's not forget the left embraced and today is arguably its main cause, the so-called "religious right" would not exist. Indeed, it would have no reason to exist. Religious conservatives did not "declare war on the country" so much as they did react to the sexual revolution and the tidal wave of immoral behavior it brought into the mainsteam of our society.

rr

Is this where someone has to remind us that the history of our nation, founded on such a deeply-shared moral understanding regardless of religiosity or lack thereof, included owning kidnapped human beings and a policy of genocide against the first inhabitants? Or is that in bad taste?

I can't help but notice that several recent examples of genuine intolerance and oppression based on religious status, the brutal abuse and murders of monks (and nuns) in Burma and Tibet, received precious little mention and not much passion from the Crunchy Con. The claim - and for all we know, it is only a claim, to have "abused" a consecrated wafer, however...

Or don't Buddhists count?

meh

PDGM wrote: "Liberal democracies work when they have the residual effects of metaphysical ideas and religious credal systems behind them. When the effects of these systems have faded, based upon the belief in 'pure reason,' liberal democracies do less well and eventually devolve into a shouting match based upon exploring the outer limits of individualism."

Could you elaborate on that? And what evidence do you have for it?

The Scandinavian countries, Iceland and Holland are less religious than other Western Democracies. And they are relatively good countries. They are strong democracies, and they are some of the best on the UNDP Development Index, for example, there is very low poverty and infant mortality.

Elizabeth wrote: "Is this where someone has to remind us that the history of our nation, founded on such a deeply-shared moral understanding regardless of religiosity or lack thereof, included owning kidnapped human beings and a policy of genocide against the first inhabitants? Or is that in bad taste?"

There were a lot of problems with the founding the country. For example, women weren't allowed to vote. And African Americans were counted as three-fifths of a person in terms of apportionment. So, we shouldn't think that they got it all right. They made a lot of bad decisions.

For example, Voltaire did a good job with that.

Isn't Voltaire the one who said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? Shouldn't that also apply to militant atheists' toleration of religious views with which they disagree?

And he is pointing out that certain religious beliefs and practices are questionable, which is good. It’s important for people to hear that. It might help them arrive at better views.

How exactly does going out of one's way to insult people and desecrate something they hold sacred help them "arrive at better views"?

Now Myers is no Voltaire, but it’s important that his views on religion are known.

He has the right to say anything he wants to, and more power to him. But there are lines that one shouldn't cross in a civil society. I realize that those lines are nebulous and are constantly shifting, which presents an ongoing problem. But there is a basic respect that we need to have for one another if a free society can continue to function.

I think people are right to suggest that he hasn't done anything documentable for which he should be fired. But that doesn't mean we should ignore it. I think for the first time I can really understand why many Muslims were upset by the Danish Mohammad cartoons.

No, I don't condone any kind of violent response, or any violent threats. Aside from any moral issues they raise

I agree with those who suggest that perhaps the best response is to challenge him to prove the veracity of his assertions, or else conclude that he's just blowing hot air.

There sure are lines that shouldn't be crossed in a civil society--making death threats, or trying to get someone fired or expelled for nothing more than mocking religion. Those acts are what inspired P.Z. Myers' angry reaction, something he never would have done otherwise.

It is the height of idiot moral absurdity that Myers, and not those who have actually threatened to do harm, is labeled as a threat to democracy in this blog. It is the height of idiot moral absurdity that no one is angry that the student who started the whole incident actually was expelled--over a frgging cracker.

It was just a cracker, people. Grow up, deal with reality, and start directing your criticisms at the people who actually deserve it.

David J White wrote: "Isn't Voltaire the one who said, 'I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?' Shouldn't that also apply to militant atheists' toleration of religious views with which they disagree?"

It is important to tolerate people in the sense that one shouldn’t harm someone because of the views that he or she espouses. And one shouldn’t be put in jail or be made to have a bad life because of the views one expresses. However, it’s important to disagree with people who offer problematic views. And sometimes one should deny certain kinds of opportunities to people because of the views that they have expressed, for example, David Duke should not be hired to be a commentator on CNN or to have a column in the New York Times.

David wrote: "How exactly does going out of one's way to insult people and desecrate something they hold sacred help them 'arrive at better views?'"

Maybe some people will realize that certain claims are unreasonable, for example, that the Immaculate Conception or resurrection of Jesus occurred. Or at least they may be more skeptical of certain unreasonable claims.

David wrote: "He has the right to say anything he wants to, and more power to him. But there are lines that one shouldn't cross in a civil society. I realize that those lines are nebulous and are constantly shifting, which presents an ongoing problem. But there is a basic respect that we need to have for one another if a free society can continue to function."

I agree. And I don’t think he should have done what he did. But he shouldn’t be fired for it, or have any official sanction taken against him by the university. I show why in my earlier post.

David wrote: "I think people are right to suggest that he hasn't done anything documentable for which he should be fired. But that doesn't mean we should ignore it. I think for the first time I can really understand why many Muslims were upset by the Danish Mohammad cartoons."

No, I'm not saying you should ignore it. I'm just saying that he shouldn't be fired or have the university take some official action against him.

SteveM wrote: "Take the drama of blasphemy out of the picture for a second. What Myer did was socially corrosive because it was BAD MANNERS!"

I don't know if what he did was "socially corrosive." But for the sake of argument, let's say it was. He shouldn't be fired or have any formal action taken against him by the university. I've tried to show why.

SteveM wrote: "In earlier times, academic freedom would have allowed Myer full freedom to voice is opinions related to issues IN HIS DOMAIN. But being a **** because he just wants to be a **** is not an inalienable right of tenure. Well, it didn't use to be."

If he signed a tenure contract, it would be a violation of his contract to fire him for what he did. Tenure contracts allow for termination in a very narrow class of circumstances, and what Myers did wouldn't qualify.

Should he be fired?

I don't know. How's he in the classroom? Does he treat his students with respect there? Is he hostile to students of faith who may wear outward markings of that faith?

Hey, I'm sure it's well known that I'm no advocate of homosexual "rights". But I am an advocate of individual rights being shared equally. If a professor riduculed his student/s in a public classroom (college or otherwise) for being Christian, athiest, gay, or for anyreason, THAT would be a reason to consider firing.

Do I think PZ is a fatuous idiot and a bigot? Of course I do.

Do I want him teaching science to me or my son? Hardly. I've lost respect for him as a person.

But if he teaches well, and his students are not abused, then I find no grounds for firing him.

However, since this whole thing is so public, I'm not so sure that the envioronment of hatred and ridicule he promotes won't spill into his classroom now.

I certainly wouldn't hire him (unless I were hiring for a Jesuit run college of course). ;-)

SteveM wrote: "Why thank you Ed.

"QED Rod's point."

I don't see your point. What do you mean?

Max Schadenfreude wrote:

"Should he be fired?

"I don't know. How's he in the classroom? Does he treat his students with respect there? Is he hostile to students of faith who may wear outward markings of that faith?"

My point is that he shouldn't be fired for what he did to the Eucharist cracker. If he was abusive towards his students, that would be a separate issue. I'm not sure what a tenure contract would say on the matter.

Daniel,

Thanks for not engaging in ad hominem attack in your reply.

Still, I must point out that your reply contains not one specific example of any "power" Evangelicals or Fundamentalists have wielded to impose themselves upon you or those who share your views.

Granted, there is a limited degree to which one faction in a democracy can impose itself to some extent upon some other faction.

I just don't see what evidence suggests that Evangelicals or Fundamentalists have done that to any great degree -- certainly I don't see what evidence suggests they that have done any where so near as much as secularists in the past fifty years.

I grew up in the heart of the Bible Belt and I visit all the time. I have never felt the slightest bit imposed upon or inconvenienced by any of the sort of person that you demonize here on a regular basis. Granted, my values may differ less from theirs than yours do, but I repeat that I am not an Evangelical, not a Fundamentalists, Not a Conservative, and not a Republican.

I work in the academic world and while most secularists I encounter there are as civil and decent as people in the Bible Belt, there is a plurality of secularists of the P. Z. Myers sort who truly are engaged in the intolerance and bigotry they constantly project onto those who are not like them.

Granted, this is anecdotal, but I would still contend that my experience jibes with what the social science research shows -- that in general, participation in charitable works and other forms of good citizenship is strongly correlated with traditionalist faith. Which is to say that whatever ill religious traditionalists do is strongly outweighed by the good -- something which cannot be said of secularists.

[i]I work in the academic world and while most secularists I encounter there are as civil and decent as people in the Bible Belt, there is a plurality of secularists of the P. Z. Myers sort who truly are engaged in the intolerance and bigotry they constantly project onto those who are not like them.[/i]

The only intolerance and bigotry here is that of theists against uppity atheists who don't know their place.

Myers didn't make any death threats.

Myers didn't campaign to get someone fired.

Myers didn't campaign to get someone expelled.

Myers didn't assault anyone.

All Myers did was mock the self important religious nuts who did, in fact, engage in those behaviors--by "harming" a cracker.

Let's get some moral perspective, here.

"My point is that he shouldn't be fired for what he did to the Eucharist cracker."

Ed (and others), are you aware that calling the Eucharist a "cracker" is insulting?

Do you care? Or is that your point of using the word?

Faustus: "All Myers did was mock the self important religious nuts who did, in fact, engage in those behaviors--by "harming" a cracker."

Faustus, in addition to my questions above, and as I've said before, even if the Eucarist is indeed only a cracker, mocking "religious nuts...who engaged in those behaviors" is not ALL he did.

There is plenty of bigotry and idiocy, and compassion and thoughtfulness too, on both sides of the aisle in this case.

Where do you stand?

I suppose this is what it's like to be an outsider looking in.

I'm sitting here in London and, having only recently heard of the term "Culture Wars", have come to associate it with the abrupt lurch towards the political right of the United States since the late 1970s.

There does indeed seem to be some kind of tussle that, geographically, corresponds very roughly to a struggle in cultural values between the metropolitan coastal areas of the USA and the landlocked states. Another way to view this is as a struggle between the intelligentsia and the politicized churches, with politicians and elected officials caught in the crossfire as they scurry for votes.

So ironically the highly industrialized, technocratic United States is a country in which a considerable proportion of the population appears to sincerely believe that the earth is less than ten thousand years old.

I don't know that I'd categorize that as a war, so much as an opportunity for education. Activism by educators such as Myers seems justified in the circumstances. Sometimes it pays for a respected instructor of biology to play the part of a small boy and say "The king has no clothes!" Besides which, it's fun tweaking noses.

The war is as illusory as the ghost in the wafer.

me | July 27, 2008 2:23 PM writes:

''I know people who strongly believe that women should wear head coverings, denim jumpers and never cut their hair. I think this is absurd. It's not a belief which I have any respect for whatsoever. What I do have respect for, however, is the fact that the people who believe this do so sincerely. It is out of my respect for the fact of their belief (not respect for the particulars of their belief), that I would not harass, ridicule or attempt to impede in any way those who hold this particular belief.''

That's a good example. You and I obviously wouldn't attempt to "impede" an ignoramus who proclaimed that women should wear head coverings. I sincerely hope that both of us would do everything in our power to speak out against, attack, impede and thwart anybody who made a death threat or other attempt to impose the wearing of head-coverings on an unwilling person.

Whilst I might respect someone's right to cling to his superstitions, I won't stand by and see him impose them on others.

Thus PZ Myers didn't stand by and, without comment and demonstration in opposition, pass by whilst death threats were made against a young kid who walked out of a church service with a consecrated wafer. Good man. I nearly said "Good Samaritan".

I will note that a 'cracker' is unleavened bread. That's all that it means. Manischewitz sells Matzo in what is called 'crackers' on the box. And that is a modern variant of what was probably used in the original ceremony.

So, there is nothing inherently disrespectful about calling it a cracker. That is what it is. A thin 'wafer' of unleavened bread.

What makes 'cracker' disrespectful? Can't be that there are foods named after that. After all, I can go into a grocery aisle and buy wafers, too. Or from my local Girl Scouts. (That's what 'thin mints' are called, right on the box.

Oh, and Erin, 'cracker' and 'wafer' are used, well, in the definitions OF 'wafer' and 'cracker'. They are very close definitions. Using, for some reason, the British definition of 'biscuit', (which we would likely call a cookie, except there's no expectation of it being sweet), the 'definition-go-round' is..

cracker- 1. a thin, crisp biscuit.

Biscuit- 1. a dry and crisp or hard bread in thin, flat cakes, made without yeast or other raising agent; a cracker.

Wafer- 1. a thin, crisp cake or biscuit, often sweetened and flavored.

While being accurate is always beneficial, English is just chock full of dozens of words for the same thing. Usually varying in degree of, well, social status, with some used in certain settings more than others.

Tired Man | July 27, 2008 6:09 PM

''If Pharyngula is a personal blog, why does Dr. Myers post so much on his personal blog from work? ''

You should probably ask him that. Most of it does seem to be related to embryology and developmental biology, which is his speciality. Some of it is godless liberalism, which doesn't seem to be inconsistent with the work.

Shut this one down Rod. It's outta gas.

Send the Christians home to perform corporal works of mercy and the atheists home to self-congratulate on their superior intellect and reasoning while reloading up on smug sanctimony.

Yes, it is summer now. But during the academic year, check out the time stamps: they show that Dr. Myers posts about 6 times a day from 9-5 on M-F. If the UMM allows Myers to post so often on his personal blog while he is at work, then they are not in a position to so easily distance themselves from it.

And most of his blog is not about embryology and developmental biology (we could count up the tags to demonstrate this). Most of his blog is about religion and politics. And he makes money off it.

Which I noted it could be, Max, but not by definition.

Cracker doesn't sound the same as wafer. Definition-wise, it is actually more accurate. (In every other usage, wafers are sweets. Matzo, sort of the original communion bread, is clearly called a 'cracker' on the container.)

Karne,

You may have missed my context example above; scoll if you like.

Other Examples:

"What you believe is God, I see as simply a cracker." Respectful and honest.

"It's a friggin' cracker! Get over it." Disrespectful and trollish.

Tony, agreed.

FTR, my comments regarding context were in response to Karen's question.

Personally, I like vigorous (but respectful) exchanges over disagreements. But the first step there is allowing each to define their own side AND acknowleging the other's side. Not agreeing with the other's side, but understanding it and acknowledging it for the basis of vigorous conversation.

Karen, a quick Google search of the two phrases shows that "communion wafer" and "communion cracker" return very different results. In fact, aside from someone searching for a "communion cracker" recipe and being directed to recipes for "communion bread" I didn't see any indication that the word "cracker" was being used as a word for the Eucharist *except* as a phrase of disrespect and hostility.

So, no, I reject the idea that "cracker" is meant as a neutral descriptive word. It's meant as an insult.

And there is a history of this sort of insult being directed against Catholics, in particular. Consider the Lipton soup ad from a few years ago, where Lipton ran a print ad showing a smirking man in line at a Catholic parish waiting to receive Communion--with a bowl of Lipton's onion dip in his hand. While Lipton eventually apologized for the ad, it's amazing how frequent and tolerated this kind of disrespect for the Catholic notion of the Eucharist is.

(And during the "soup ad" controversy, Catholics were repeatedly told to ignore the whole thing, laugh at it, get over it etc. The same cry of "It's just a cracker!" was used then, too, to excuse the ad and further mock Catholic beliefs.)

In my mind, the biggest problem here is that he was needlessly and provocatively rude. If he had lived up to liberal standards of politeness, and been more PC, he wouldn't have deliberately tried to tick off religious conservatives.

Oh. And I think it is extremely hyperbolic of Rod to suggest that rudeness is a threat to democratic society. Like it or not, and clearly the answer for many is NOT, we live in a multicultural society. One look at our changing demographics will illustrate that. It is not uncommon for me to walk through the shopping mall and hear 3 different languages. That isn't the homogenous world my parents grew up in, but that IS the world I live in. It kills me to hear conservatives rave about how rude liberals for insulting their religious beliefs in one breath while insulting gays, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Muslims, black people, and so on in another breath. Somehow, THAT rudeness is not a threat to society? Enlighten me as to how?

I wasn't arguing the intent of usage, Erin.

I was informing about the definition. That people TAKE 'cracker' as an insult, and even that it is used as an insult is quite possible.

But, by definition, it is actually a more accurate word than wafer. However, I generally use 'wafer' by habit anyway.

But using the definition as an argument against doesn't really work.

Rod wrote: "All Reason alone gives us is radical subjectivity. It has shown us how and why to doubt everything, but does not show us why we should believe in anything (other, I suppose, than the truths disclosed by science -- which aren't moral truths at all)."

It seems that neither of those claims can be true. They are both logically inconsistent. Each of those claims is being offered as known to be true at least partly through reason. And the claims itself asserts that reasons doesn't allow us to know anything. The claims are similar to the following claim: "I know that no claims are known to be true." Thus, I'm not going to believe that either of those claims is true.

"The point isn't whether someone else's beliefs deserve respect in the particulars. The point is that the people who hold these beliefs deserve respect. And if we've reached the point where the fact that someone believes something which we find ridiculous is seen as grounds not to afford them basic respect, then that would simply confirm the idea that the culture wars have rendered our liberal democracy untenable. (And yes, I am well aware that this lack of respect moves both ways. However, "he did it first" is a child's argument that any good parent firmly brushes away as completely secondary to the matter at hand.)"

I'm curious, me, how far this tolerance of yours is to be extended. Rod has written much about Muslims here in his blog. He has taken some pretty contrary stands to the beliefs of some Muslim sects, from their belief that women should be completely covered to their belief in polygamy, and yes even to their belief that other religions are heresy and should be resisted with violence.

Do you believe that these people should be respected? Not that their views are correct, or even legitmate, but that they should be respected in the way that you mention it above?

We can substitute virtually any group here that has been commented on in this forum: FLDS polygamists, illegal immigrants, Anglican church leaders, liberals, etc. Should these people who hold to these views be given respect?

Stan wrote:

"I disagree. The claim is not made from the sphere of reason, but from one Godel level higher: "meta-reason" if you will, which is required if one is to analyze reason from outside itself."

What do you mean by "meta-reason?"

"Moreover the claims do not assert that reason 'doesn't allow us to know anything.'"

I know. Here is what they say: "All Reason alone gives us is radical subjectivity. It has shown us how and why to doubt everything, but does not show us why we should believe in anything (other, I suppose, than the truths disclosed by science -- which aren't moral truths at all)." The claims say that reason doesn't allow us to know anything other than "the truths disclosed by science." I don't know what James Davison Hunter, the author of the claims, means by "truths disclosed by science." But I suspect he would want to count the two claims that I quoted as "truths not disclosed by science." And he just said that reason doesn’t enable use to know that those kinds of claims are true. And he is asserting those claims as true. And he seems to be saying that he knows that those claims are true through reason. At least I don’t know how else you would know that they are true. So, he is being logically inconsistent. So, I’m not going to believe that either of those claims is true.

Stan wrote: “The claims assert that certain knowable things are outside the domain of reason. The self-referencing paradox that is presented as representing the claims being made is not accurate, unless it is made in the same manner as the Godel statement, requiring a higher system of validation; in this mannner the statement becomes, not a paradox, but a known theorem of logic and mathematics, one which points to meta-systems as requirements for validation.

"Reason allows 'reasonable probability' of knowing certain things; it is based on probabilistic evidence and its certifying ‘meta-system’ is the certainty provided by non-reasoned axioms or ‘first principles."

I don’t know what you mean that. But Davison Hunter is asserting that those two claims are true. And I think he would they are not claims that are "disclosed by science." And I don’t even know what that means. And he is saying that claims not disclosed by science can’t be known by reason. How else would one know that those two claims are true?

Do you believe that these people should be respected? Not that their views are correct, or even legitmate, but that they should be respected in the way that you mention it above?

We can substitute virtually any group here that has been commented on in this forum: FLDS polygamists, illegal immigrants, Anglican church leaders, liberals, etc. Should these people who hold to these views be given respect?

Absolutely they should be respected. But by "respected," I don't mean unopposed and uncriticized. So many people on these threads seem to think that P.Z. Myers' actions -- not words, actions -- are justified because some louts allegedly threatened the life of some kid in Florida. You would not find me, or I daresay anybody on this blog, defending making death threats in that case. But Myers has no more moral right to desecrate a consecrated Host in revenge than any of us have to desecrate a mosque or a Koran in revenge for 9/11.

I expect people who disagree with my beliefs to respect me because I'm a human being. Which is why I respect others. I respect an atheist's right to believe that I'm wrong about God, and to say so -- nastily, if he wishes. But the line must be drawn somewhere, and if it's not, it's a war of all against all, in which the strongest wins. "Seize power!" as Sid Blumenthal supposedly advised. If we do not operate in an environment of basic respect for each other, pretty soon the only people who will be able to speak are those who have the power to speak and suppress all dissenting voices.

"At that level of academia people are not subject to the terms of 40 hour work week employment."

But since Myers posts so often during the time that classes are in session at the UMM, and the UMM apparently allows this posting to occur, then the UMM is on very shaky ground in trying to insist Myers blog is merely a personal blog that is completely separate from the UMM. Or are you saying Myers is free to engage in any sort of personal interest (golfing, watching movies, playing computer games) during the time he is writing and posting his personal blogs for profit?

Remember what the UMM’s Chancellor wrote:

“I expect all faculty and staff members who are part of this community to interact and engage in a civil and respectful way in the workplace, and it is my hope that this demeanor would extend beyond the boundaries of their University responsibilities and commitments.”

If Myers is posting so much from work he is “in the work place.”

Tired Man | July 27, 2008 11:04 PM writes:

How did Myers obtain this communion wafer?

He advertised for it on his blog.

: SteveM | July 27, 2008 11:14 PM writes
Sorry T. Without God (or god, whatever) you get nihilism whether you like it or not.

So it has been claimed. Dostoyevsky's maxim: "if God does not exist, then everything is permissible."

However it turns out not to be the case. As belief in God has receded amongst industrialized nations with the exception of America, this has not (for instance) reversed the historic trend towards a massively reduced homicide rate. Indeed the homicide rate in the God-fearing United States is among the highest in the developed world. That's just one indicator, of course, and there could be other factors. But there are other indicators. The venereal disease rates, teen pregnancy rates (in societies where teenaged marriage is rare), and many other factors, suggest that as industrialization and universal education have progressed acceptance of scientific ideas such as evolution have tended to go hand in hand with receding religiosity, without any noticeable adverse effects.

It may be impossible in theory, but in practice godlessness seems to work very well indeed.

Tony, if I came to your house and asked for you to hand me a photograph of your mother, took it home and drove nails through it, and you cried foul, who would you be calling crazy - yourself, or me?

Stop defending the indefensible. By indefensible I mean the depraved incivility of the professor's act, not the perfectly reasonable opinion (atheism) that inspired the act.

: junk mail man | July 28, 2008 12:05 AM
Tony, if I came to your house and asked for you to hand me a photograph of your mother, took it home and drove nails through it, and you cried foul, who would you be calling crazy - yourself, or me?

I hope you're not serious. Why on earth would I object to your doing whatever you want to a picture of my mother? Whatever tasteless act you might perform, it's only a piece of printed paper.

Thomas Reese | July 28, 2008 12:56 AM

"The Scandinavian countries, Iceland and Holland are less religious than other Western Democracies. And they are relatively good countries"

TR: My guess is people in those countries wouldn't do something like this. In fact many of those countries have laws against hate-speech. (Which is not something I favor, but there you go)

I think it would be as well to point out here that the Muhammad Cartoons were first posted in a Danish newspaper. The Danish authorities have carried out two judicial investigations (one by the regional prosecutor, the other by the Danish prosecutor), both of which concluded that no Danish law was broken.

TR: Nothing he did helped this kid in anyway that I can see. If he wanted to fight the Catholic League he should've fought the Catholic League. If he wanted to protect the kid he should've protected the kid. All he did is say "your entire religion is to blame for this action." He essentially used the kids misfortune to score points for his general disdain for religion.

I think his act is open to that criticism, certainly. My perception is different. PZ's blog is incredibly influential amongst the intelligentsia, and if it's possible for the kid's situation to be helped by getting the word out about his plight, then that has been achieved on a nationwide basis. He has also successfully tweaked the nose of the Catholic League (which I believe was originally his target). Moreover we wouldn't be having this discussion if he hadn't done anything, and I think that's a definite plus.

: Thomas R | July 28, 2008 1:17 AM

TR: Many people develop emotional connections to things or objects. In fact I'd say most people do. (Myersites seem to have some emotional misfiring here, which if so might make their actions less vile because it reduces their competence)

If I read you correctly, you're saying we're not to blame if we don't form irrational attachments to objects. Cool!

Grrrr...

The 1:27 post was me.

MH said
"Stealing, lying, and murder are wrong"

You sure about that? I'm currently reading my paper and it looks like stealing and lying areonly wrong if you get caught...Enron, Bush (WMD anyone?)

Most seem to think stealing a la Robin Hood (from the rich to the poor) is good. So when is stealing wrong?

What's wrong with lying? Why can't I lie? Who does lying hurt? My mother asked me if she looked good in an outfit and of course I lied and said yes....Is that wrong? Should I tell her that she has no business wearing clothes made for 20 year olds at age 60 and that she is ugly? I wouldn't want to lie.....

Besides are there laws against lying? I know there are laws about lying in court and false representation but just plain old lying? Could I be arrested for lying to my mom?

On a side note, I would read a tome entitled "Throes of Democracy" 1829-1877 by Walter A Mcdougall. As I read it, it is like reading a current paper. So much has changed, but some much has not changed...

Do you honestly not get it or are you lying in order to continue this silly argument? Defiling a picture of your mother wouldn't be about destroying the paper it's printed on. It would be about dishonoring your mother and the love you have for her. That is the point of destroying symbols and it is an ugly and deeply violent act.

No I don't get it. My deep love for my mother isn't affected in any way by what a third party might do to a photograph of her; nor could she possibly be dishonored by the actions of an ignorant person who spat on it. The very idea is the most absurd bit of magical thinking I've ever encountered outside a religion, and certainly unworthy of sober discussion by grown adults.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | July 28, 2008 7:51 AM

Well, I think you put your finger on it with the "magical thinking" observation, Tony.

"My deep love for my mother isn't affected in any way by what a third party might do to a photograph of her;" TS

TR: Of course not, it's about disrespecting that connection and you. The effect wouldn't be to you and your mother, but to you and this person. (In theory)

The example would've been better if the relative involved were deceased and the photo was given so the individual could give it a frame. In that case, as an atheist, there would be no chance of ever seeing the person pictured again and the individual getting the picture would be breaking faith with a verbal agreement. (I do see on reflection why any mere photo given haphazardly is different and not analogous to the current situation)

I keep getting sucked into this. I admit part of it is I find atheists fascinating. They've accomplished many great and wonderful things, including some of my favorite literature. Despite most of my reading being atheist authors, and many of my friends being atheists, they can still almost strike me like aliens from Neptune. And I imagine I'm the same to them.

"No I don't get it. My deep love for my mother isn't affected in any way by what a third party might do to a photograph of her; nor could she possibly be dishonored by the actions of an ignorant person who spat on it. The very idea is the most absurd bit of magical thinking I've ever encountered outside a religion, and certainly unworthy of sober discussion by grown adults."

So this is where pure rationalist thinking leads? To the complete devaluation of symbols, since to claim that there is any connection, even a mimetic or evocative one, between a symbol and what it symbolizes is juvenile "magical thinking"?

If this is the case, and this type of thinking is indeed in the ascendancy in the Western world, we're in big trouble, as modernity has led to what its critics have always said it would -- utter subjectivity and solipsism, in a word, nihilism.

Tony, the reason not many people here share your uber-cool sang-froid about symbols is because it's a deformity. Like it or not, history is one long narrative of symbolism. Always and everywhere, ideas and natural objects collide and ignite experiences of what humans call the spiritual. This should be obvious to anyone who's ever opened a book. Objects themselves can become precious to humans when the object has taken on a certain role in that human's life. When a bank forecloses on a farmer's land, let's say land that has been in the farmer's family for generations, the farmer suffers not only for so much soil and rocks, but for the spiritual connection through the land that will be severed. This is not "magical thinking;" it's simply a plane of rational thinking that you don't like.

And it is rational. Reason is not mere mathematics, and it is a small mind that desires to abolish all non-mathematical thought as "irrational" or "magical."

Think about what you DON'T know, Tony. (There's a lot.) For instance, do you really know for a fact that the communion wafer is nothing more than an ordinary cracker after consecration? On what basis do you know it? No one has ever claimed that the essence of the cracker changes in any scientifically detectable manner. If it changes, as I believe, then it changes in a way you haven't disproved or even disputed. You may complain "One can't prove a negative so it's an unfair question" and I may respond, exactly, one can't prove a negative. So stop telling me how enlightening it is for a jerk to drive a nail through a cracker that is precious to millions of people and worthless to him. What does it prove?

Yelling at me about "magical" this and "irrational" that leaves us right where we started: I still believe in the things you don't see, and you still think my belief is somehow bad enough for me for you to yell at me about it. Which I promise you, it's not.

junk mail man | July 28, 2008 9:03 AM

No one has ever claimed that the essence of the cracker changes in any scientifically detectable manner. If it changes, as I believe, then it changes in a way you haven't disproved or even disputed.

I don't think it would be possible for me to express more completely the point at which magical thinking starts.

When one claims that something has changed, but in a manner which cannot possibly be detected, then one is invoking magic.

I do dispute the claim, and I patiently await evidence.

If there is no detectable difference between a claim you make and a false claim containing the same words made by a charlatan, then it's not "a plane of rational thinking", it's irrational because it contains magical elements.

Alistair MacIntyre made essentially the same point in "After Virtue". Our society no longer has a common, shared, morality and as a result much public discussion has degenerated to a cacophony of competing and inconsistent moral claims and preferences. It is hard to see how a democratic, pluralistic society can function effectively in the long-term when there is such disagreement about fundamental valuea and ideas.

"On the subject of personal mementoes, however, I think I'm pretty fortunate." TS

TR: Why? The only thing coming to mind is you can't lose them and therefore avoid getting hurt.

Sometimes I wonder if this is the notion with atheism itself. I remember Asimov, who I love as a writer, seemed to indicate some moment of disappointment involving Santa Claus or some such leading to his atheism. Possibly not letting oneself feel things, like a connection to God or an object, is a way to avoid getting hurt if you lose it or it goes away. Or not.

Anyway Hefner aside mementos aren't just ways to substitute for affection from XYZ. My family was plenty affectionate. Sometimes gifts were expressions of that. I'm wondering if the way you are occurs with theists too or if it's unique to atheists or if it's just unique to you.

Thomas, I'm sure there are atheists who possess items that remind them of others, and with which they'd be loath to part. I don't think it would be productive to psychoanalyze either atheism or belief in Gods as a pathology. Because it is possible for us to address the question in the realm of logic, evidence and deduction, and the question is one with implications for the natural world as much as anything, I suggest that claims for the existence of God that imply his intervention in the natural world be treated as claims of scientific nature rather than evidence of psychological problems.

"No amount of nails driven into a photograph affects the subject in any way. Destroying a symbol has in this manner has no effect at all on the subject. Claims to the contrary are sheer voodoo."

Again, this is not what the other poster said. You are either reading this interpretation into his statement, or misunderstanding him, or both.

: Rob G | July 28, 2008 10:32 AM, I do think there must be a fundamental misunderstanding here. However several people seem to have stated that they believe destruction of a symbol to have some kind of effect on the subject. The extent to which this effect is said to exist seems to vary, but there seems to be little recognition that such destructive acts have absolutely no effect on the subject.

Ed says:

The Scandinavian countries, Iceland and Holland are less religious than other Western Democracies. And they are relatively good countries. They are strong democracies, and they are some of the best on the UNDP Development Index, for example, there is very low poverty and infant mortality.

That's a good point, and one I periodically make when Rod or a commenter* moans about how the world is going to hell because people aren't as ignorant and credulous as they once were -- the one small flaw in their claim is that it's 180 degrees wrong.

-Oss

* E.g., poor distressed Rob G:

If this is the case, and this type of thinking is indeed in the ascendancy in the Western world, we're in big trouble, as modernity has led to what its critics have always said it would -- utter subjectivity and solipsism, in a word, nihilism.

: rr | July 28, 2008 10:34 AM

Yes, I agree with you that promoters of atheism can do, and have done, much harm. Atheism is no guarantor of societal health. I addressed here, rather, the claim that "Without God (or god, whatever) you get nihilism whether you like it or not." The societies of Western Europe and Japan have become more godless over time without ill effects. While there is even some plausible indication that they're considerably more healthy than the United States where religious belief is extremely common, that is not necessary to support my conclusion that godlessness does not lead to the breakdown of society.

Or maybe, Thomas, everyone isn't as you claim. Just the people you know.

I can agree. I don't form /emotional/ attachments to things. I just don't. I am not a collector, I don't have a single 'thing' (note, not people, objects) that I would be emotionally upset to lose. Which is not the same as, say, losing stuff in a fire, so you don't have it available to use, and have to spend money to replace.

The closest would be things I couldn't replace, which DOES include my son's photo. Not because of the thing (if I had a hundred of the same one, I wouldn't be upset to lose it. It is the rarity and inability to get another like it, not the object itself. So not really a Eucharist equivalent, there.)

Yes, Virginia, humans can be (I hope I am, at least) normal and not place huge emotional value on objects. I can even point out why, and it isn't from atheism.

I was a Navy Brat. I never lived more than a few years in one place, and we moved ALL the time. And we were rather.. ruthless when it came to cutting down on stuff we carried when it came time to move. I don't remember if, as a baby, I had a 'blankie' or a favorite toy, though it must not've been that notable (more intense, or longer than most, etc), since nobody else mentioned it either.

Of course, that doesn't really apply to communion wafers either. After all, it isn't that people think if you harm the wafer, you harm Jesus. They think the wafer IS Jesus (well, part of him, at least). So, there really can't be anything close to an equivalent to that.

The whole point, Thomas R. is they don't think it IS a symbol. You wouldn't get nearly this level of fireworks from congregations that DO view the communion service as symbolic. When a nail is put through a communion wafer, it is not LIKE putting a nail in Jesus, to them it IS putting a nail in Jesus. (Those who are believers in Trans or Consubstantiation please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I got from LCMS confirmation classes.)

The problem is that, unlike the picture of the mother, in which both parties acknowledge there IS a mother, at least, the other party has not one shred of belief the wafer is ANYTHING but a wafer. The only harm (as far as the one doing it is concerned) is to the emotions of the person who thinks it is (and remember, to them, the other party only THINKS it is) something else.

The closest equivalent to it (as far as what the one doing so is thinking) would be considered insulting, since the other party would likely either be a child, or a very unusual adult, would be, as someone noted, a child's toy that they HAVE endowed with feelings, and a personality, etc.

I really can't think of a non-religious adult equivalent to that. Well, to be blunt, at least among those who are sane. But if someone can come up with an object example among sane adults that isn't religious where one adult thinks the object, itself, is sentient, and the other adult does not, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Tina: "You sure about that? I'm currently reading my paper and it looks like stealing and lying are only wrong if you get caught...Enron, Bush (WMD anyone?)"

I would disagree and say an act is moral or immoral even if you don't get caught. Guilt, remorse, and regret are natures way of proving that to you if you doubt that. Also the Enron guys got caught and punished.

Tina: "Most seem to think stealing a la Robin Hood (from the rich to the poor) is good. So when is stealing wrong?"

If you shop lifted on a regular basis and then started telling people about it you'll likely face social ostracism unless you live with thieves.

I'm not sure what you mean by Robin Hood unless you're talking about redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation. That's way to complex to go into.

Tina: "What's wrong with lying? Why can't I lie? Who does lying hurt?"

Obviously not all lies are equal and some can be social niceties. But if you lie in personal relationships about things that matter you'll eventually find those relationships falling apart. If you lie on a contract or in court then you'll learn more about the rule of law.

My larger point is that if you think our society doesn't have a basic agreement on morality then you need to travel the world more.

Rob G | July 28, 2008 10:54 AM writes:

Also, in none of these countries, US included, has nihilism gone completely full flower. Give it time.

This is rather assuming one's conclusions. The assertion that absence of belief in God implies nihilism is unsupported.

"The assertion that absence of belief in God implies nihilism is unsupported."

If by 'God' is meant a transcendent ground of being, numerous philosophers and theologians would disagree.

I don't know, Rob G. I was told Jesus was PRESENT. (That's what 'Real Presence' means, after all.) Body, blood, soul and divinity, in the wafer.

That there was a symbolic meaning as well, I suppose. But the main point was that the communion wafer actually, and really, contained Jesus.

Of course, LCMS is Consubstantiation, not Transubstantiation, so it might make a difference. They spent like a month of lessons on that, but I still have a problem figuring out the distinction.

But no, the whole point, and one they are very careful to make, was that it was NOT a symbol (something that stands for something else) but WAS that thing.

Of course, again, if a believer in Real Presence wants to correct, its their faith, not mine.

Rob G | July 28, 2008 11:24 AM, I agree that there are some philosophers who have adopted the assumption that all morality must derive from an ultimate authority. That many philosophere have dissented from this rather proves my point: it is an assumption that is not necessary to a concept of morality.

The idea that humans as free agents may interact and establish a morality by consensus (the principle of reciprocity, etc) is a very old and well established one.

Rob G, Karen, okay! Now all we have to do is convince all those angry Catholics! :)

Tony: "The only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

Further data is eagerly awaited. However I am aware that the doctrine of transubstantiation predicts that no such data is possible."

Me: I was thinking about this last night and I remembered something that needs mentioning. The doctrin of transubstantion is indeed absurd. In fact, it is scandalously absurd.

However, the dragon-in-the-garage bit, while somewhat applicable to the Eucharist, fails when used as a type of argument against the existance of God, or of any super-natural realm.

The dragon of course (real or imaginary) is a physical object. To the degree it exists (in reality or in the imagination only) it exists as a physical object. The argument is just a warmed over version of "show me God in the lab" approach. It's an argument that says, "There is no non-physical realm because there is no physical evidence." That seems like lack of understanding of the terms. I could just as easily ask for the non-physical evidence of the physical universe.

The Eucharist is, however, a physical thing. Indeed, the claims are that it is physically God. That is on the face of it absurd; the non-physical made physical.

So, sacramental Christians should not be troubles nor surprised that the doctrine is rejected as absurd. Nor should we be surprised that we are held as absurd for believing it. I would only say to this that absurd doesn't mean false, and truth is stranger than fiction.

What is contradictory of many athiests is the demand for physical evidence to prove a non-physical reality. That is absurd too.

We each have our faith.

"The idea that humans as free agents may interact and establish a morality by consensus (the principle of reciprocity, etc) is a very old and well established one."
No doubt. But whether such a morality is ultimately sustainable can be questioned, given its arbitrary nature.
Posted by: Rob G | July 28, 2008 11:47 AM

I predict that form of natural selection winnows out the ones that don't work.

What is contradictory of many athiests is the demand for physical evidence to prove a non-physical reality. That is absurd too.

Funny you should say that. I have a telephone that puts me in touch with a transcendent plane of existence. Well the other day I was chatting to a friend and we discussed this very question. My supernatural friend tells me he can disprove the claim, but the disproof is only understandable by those who dwell in the supernatural plane.

Sorry about that.

It should be a snap for the creator of the universe to sign his work if he desired and it would provide physical evidence. One easy way would be to encode information into the cosmic microwave background radiation. At first it would appear uniform but really close inspection would reveal information. That information could have structure that was self describing and any language based intelligence could decipher it.

Then it isn't about harm, it is about offense. And, well, while I wouldn't do it myself (I rather like keeping my job, and my home not vandalized), we don't have any 'freedom from being offended', I'm afraid to say.

Which is good, for you guys, given what's been said about actual atheists (rather than something they hold dear) on this board in response to the act. Nihilists, incapable of morality, filled with demonic anger, etc, and so forth.

But, though I can be bothered, or attempt to contradict the notions, I don't think those who do so should face ANY sanctions.

Then it isn't about harm, it is about offense.

No, Karen, it is about harm. I don't know what syllogism led to this, but the fact is an item was taken from a church under false pretenses. That's theft. Yes, the harm is trivial in the material sense, I agree, but, provided Myers is telling the truth and wasn't duped by his supplier, he received a stolen item and vandalized it. In this society, we've all agreed that we can be secure in our homes and assembly peaceably without interference. Myers broke that contract, and the best that can be said of him is that he did it in support of some other jerk who did much the same thing. We should expect better out of professors (and UMM should rebuke him, though not fire him), and this should be especially so for someone who's taken on the role as atheist spokesman.

As hyperbolic as Rod's original blogpost title may sound, if this behavior is imitated more widely, then, yes, secular democracy is in trouble. Myers needs to face some serious criticism, and not just from Catholics and other religionists, but from atheists as well.

Tony: "m yeah but you'd be sued into the ground by Carl Sagan's estate."

God's probably got some pretty good lawyers, although that trial in the Book of Job didn't go so well.

Actually Sagan was in the number Pi, Andre Linde proposed the CMBR.

"we have a conservative gunman murder two people during a children's play in a liberal Unitarian church, reportedly, because he hates liberals."

Evil and insanity know no religious or political bounds.

Interestingly, while all this debate has been raging about whether PZ Meyer was a doing real harm and posed threat to democracy, we have a conservative gunman murder two people during a children's play in a liberal Unitarian church, reportedly, because he hates liberals.
Posted by: Z | July 28, 2008 1:23 PM

Yeah, I've found it curious that Rod hasn't made a post on that subject yet.

If I were a Cynic, I'd wonder how quickly a post would have been up had it been an orthodox Christian church shot up by an atheist.

By the rules of Catholic theology, is the sin of desecrating a consecrated Host comparable to the sin of murdering a child?

More sinful, less sinful, or equally sinful?

Rod G: "Yes, but this would eliminate the need for faith, correct? Why assume a creator must play by Enlightenment epistemological rules?"

I guess I assume that if a creator wants worshipers then unambiguous evidence would be a bang up way to get them. It would also solve the problem of God's word being altered since the text would be freely available in its original form.

Ugh, I had not heard about the gunman murdering two people in a Unitarian church. That's pretty awful.

"I guess I assume that if a creator wants worshipers then unambiguous evidence would be a bang up way to get them."

Yes, but if the creator's nature is love, the use of coercion would be against that nature.

So, certainty is coercion?

Do you only love your parents because you are sure they exist? I mean, even assurance isn't coercion. It isn't even assurance of obedience, much less love. After all, the original couple didn't seem to have too many doubts about the existence of God according to the story. Didn't change the outcome. And Satan, for that matter, was perfectly able to not only not love, but to actively work against God, all with no doubt whatsoever in God's existence.

So, what is coercive about unambiguous evidence of existence?

Rob G: "Yes, but if the creator's nature is love, the use of coercion would be against that nature."

I don't think evidence is coercion, but I guess that is an issue of perspective.

Anyway thanks for reading and responding.

You forgot an important element, RR.

That, in this example, I would've GIVEN you the money and, I suppose, the corpse. Sure, you might have lied to me about your intent, but unless we sign some kind of contract saying that you get the money and the body for one purpose, and you use it for another, once I give something to you, I have no basis to control what you do to it.

First, PZ, himself, didn't take anything. It was supposedly done by someone else. We have NO idea what the circumstances were around the receipt of it by the other party.

Assuming they didn't break into the church to take it, the most likely choice is walking into a Church, getting into a communion line, and just having it handed to them.

Sure, there were likely assumptions made by the one handing it to them about who they were, what they were, and what they were going to do that, but the law doesn't enforce assumptions. There's not even fraud, unless the person was ASKED if they were a Catholic, and they lied.

Just like a buyer must beware, even moreso, a seller (or giver) must, since there are few laws governing what a person can do with their property, once it is given to them.

If I GIVE you a thousand dollars, even if you lied about what you're going to do with it, I can be angry, upset, offended, royally ticked off. But, unless you signed a contract or agreement about what you were going to do with it, what I can't do is claim it was stolen.

"One could even argue that requiring belief on pain of damnation, but not giving any evidence of existence is an inherently un-loving act."

True. But apparently there is enough evidence available for at least some people, indeed some extremely intelligent, educated people, to believe.

Rob G, I guess the other thing that bothers me about that argument are previous claims of miracles in the bible which strike me as having the same problem. So it seems like it is OK some times and not others. This would basically be a universe wide miracle that is present all the time.

First, PZ, himself, didn't take anything. It was supposedly done by someone else. We have NO idea what the circumstances were around the receipt of it by the other party.

He solicited the theft, which is the same thing.

As you point out, the legal case is tough to make and prosecute, but there is quite a bit there, including Myers' words.

Sure, there were likely assumptions made by the one handing it to them about who they were, what they were, and what they were going to do that, but the law doesn't enforce assumptions. There's not even fraud, unless the person was ASKED if they were a Catholic, and they lied.

All this would work in a blank slate situation, but Myers himself acknowledges that he's not supposed to be receiving communion wafers, and knows full well that doing so is in breach of the conditions its given out under. He solicited a theft for the express purpose of vandalism, and he did so explicitly for the sake of insulting a particular demographic.

Just like a buyer must beware, even moreso, a seller (or giver) must, since there are few laws governing what a person can do with their property, once it is given to them.

Do we really want a society where a church, temple or what have you has to post security guards and issue legally airtight statements about taking a communion wafer under false pretenses. Do you want this standard applied to all situations, religious or secular? What Myers is doing is eroding the basic level of societal trust about private sacred spaces that are open to the public.

Really, what Myers has done and is doing is confirming every bad thing said about atheists by the religious.

Don't we all-atheist included, have a stake in not going down that road?
rr
Posted by: rr | July 28, 2008 2:58 PM

Yes, you are correct, we do have a stake in avoiding that scenario.

"our society doesn't need any more people like Phelps, whether they be religious or atheist."

A hearty amen to that.

It's very interesting to me that most atheists are very discerning when they set out to debunk God. They particularly fancy the Christian one.
What's Allah, chopped liver?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/2464790/Porn-film-made-at-First-World-War-memorial.html

Let's see what reactions are to this.

It's very interesting to me that most atheists are very discerning when they set out to debunk God. They particularly fancy the Christian one.
What's Allah, chopped liver?

I hear this one a lot, and the answer is that atheist don't make a distinction between Allah and the Christian god. However, when Christians pester them to know why they aren't (or in most cases, are no longer Christian believers), they debunk the Christian's arguments about why they supposedly should believe.

Tony: Was the Koran Myers tossed in Arabic or was it in English? Because, as we all know, it's not really the Koran if it ain't in the mother tongue.

Zaphod B.: "What's Allah, chopped liver?"

No chopped liver is actually pretty tasty and Islam doesn't have communion. But that's not important right now.

The arguments work pretty much the same for all religions, but people only bother discussing the religions they're familiar.

For example the friendly atheist blog was set up by someone who is an ex-Jain. I'm sure he could discuss the Jain food taboo against eating potatoes. But I can't since I wasn't raised Jain. I still violate the taboo pretty frequently since I love potatoes.

Tony: It's not truly the word of Allah unless it's in the original Arabic. If it's in any other language, it's not considered sacred.

Zaphod B. | July 28, 2008 5:27 PM, thanks. So Muslims are fine with tossing English korans into the bin? Cool.

Apparently there is statute in North Carolina that forbids couples to have sex in a graveyard. :@)

Tony, I don't think parsnips are allowed either and I know Jains can't eat onions. I'm pretty sure all root vegetables are not allowed. So if the Jains take over you are pretty much out of luck.

No French fries, no onion rings, no potatoes pancakes. The mind reels.

MH | July 28, 2008 6:12 PM. that's bad news. The idea of a vegetarian religion forbidding the tastiest, loveliest vegetables makes me weep.

This is what it's all about, folks. Not exactly "I have a dream!" but we're getting there.

Letter to President, University of Central Florida

Dear President Hitt

I have read of the ludicrous campaign by Catholic lobbyists to victimize a young man, Webster Cook, because he walked off with a wafer. Their grasp of reality is so tenuous that they are unable to tell the difference between a wafer and Jesus! Either they really think the wafer becomes Jesus when blessed, in which case they are idiots. Or they don't, in which case they are hysterical hypocrites. Either way, they deserve to be insulted. I don't know whether Webster really did insult them, but I certainly would have done, given the opportunity.

I am not an American, and can speak only as an observer from outside. There are many of us who have recently come to suspect that the United States is sliding downhill into theocracy -- a state of affairs that would have appalled the Founding Fathers, and is in danger of earning the ridicule of the educated world. I feel sure that you, and the University of Central Florida, will have the good sense to give the lie to this suspicion, treat the hysterical Catholic lobby with the contempt that it deserves, and allow this principled young man, Webster Cook, to pursue his studies free of harassment from religious nutcases.

Yours sincerely
Richard Dawkins FRS
Professor of the Public Understanding of Science
University of Oxford
England

That raises an interesting point, Derek. Were you aware that the religious ceremony Cook attended, from which he removed a consecrated wafer, was held on publicly funded property belonging to the University of Central Florida?

I'm aware of that, Tony, but if Cook really had a problem with that, then he could have protested through the normal channels. Lord knows if they were in violation of the Establishment Clause, the ACLU would be more than happy to kick up a pro bono suit (which usually winds up being pro bono suis). Going into a service and stealing a sacred item (no matter how silly you might think it is) is not how a student should comport himself, especially one who is on the Student Senate. If he remains unrepentant about this, then the school should kick him out.

Max wrote, “Ed (and others), are you aware that calling the Eucharist a "cracker" is insulting? Do you care? Or is that your point of using the word?”

In my case, the answers are yes, and no. I actually take the offense of people against this label to be proof of the point that they are hopelessly out of touch with metaphysical and moral reality.

Max also wrote, “Faustus, in addition to my questions above, and as I've said before, even if the Eucharist is indeed only a cracker, mocking "religious nuts...who engaged in those behaviors" is not ALL he did.”

Okay, what else did he do? Please, enlighten me. I can’t see that he sent death threats to anyone or tried to interfere in the lives of a single human being, all acts that religious jerks engaged in against him and others—which, unless I’ve missed something, you strangely don’t seem to condemn. (No, I’ve not read every single one of the 200+ posts.)

Max finally wrote, “Where do you stand?”

I stand for logic and reason above idiotic superstition. I stand for free speech against oppression. I stand for the social health benefits from mocking and attacking people who issue death threats and try to mess with the lives of people who throw crackers away. I submit that these values are eminently superior to any of the values held by the Catholic League, any of the people who issued death threats against Myers, or anyone who tries to defend them by tacit refusal to criticize them.

What jewels of thought do YOU stand for?

He identifies himself as a religious conservative.

I linked to story upthread JPL which says the gunman didn't like Christians.

And, at least in my personal opinion, the murders outweigh the desecration.

No serious individual on this site is disputing the wrongness of those murders. The only argument you might have on that issue is whether we should hook the guy up to a gurney and send him to the next world, or stick him in a cell for the rest of his life.

With the desecration issue you have two prominent spokesman for the New Atheist movement promoting an invasion of other people's gatherings and stealing items they value highly.

Further reading on the story seems to be that he hated Liberal Christians, rather than all Christians. Of course, he apparently also hated gays, blacks, etc. so he was sort of an equal opportunity hater.

As for the other issue, again, we agree. Many of the New Atheist sort, Dawkins among them, have moved way beyond merely denying and decrying faith, and into insulting and demeaning it. Of course, they are only returning the favor, given the abuse that atheists take from the Church, et. al. But I never thought it was right for the Church, and I don't think it's right for them.

It is unfortunate that the Church's past activities towards Atheists and freethinkings, including persecution, burning, torture, etc. weaken their moral position on the issue. Myers desecrated a host...the Church burned Giordelli Bruno.

Nonetheless, it really does seem like Dawkins, Hitchens and the like just enjoying being sacreligious for its own sake, like some crappy Death Metal band loaded with faux-Satanic imagery.

Oh yes, Crackakilla! Chris Hitchens on drums, Dawkins on Bass, Myers on lead guitar. Where's a heavy metal umlaut when you need one?

Derek Copold | July 28, 2008 8:14 PM, you say "One can always ignore or a repay a verbal insult with no real harm done."

And what's your view of the several recent death threats and the ongoing attempts to have some atheists kicked out of college? Can they also be ignored?

Tony,

First, you should know I'm an atheist myself. I'm bothered by Myers and Cook's actions because they are striking at the base of our societal concord. I'm rather disappointed by Dawkins' reaction to this because his book is mostly well argued and while being polemical, does sound out the other side's arguments rather fairly. In fact, he, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett all agreed that desecrating religious items is execrable on their "4 Horsemen" video, which you can find on Youtube.

To your points.

Death threats are wrong. Period.

It's worth noting, again, that you can find all sorts of net nuts who'll issue threats for just about any reason. Given that there are about 1 billion Catholics, it's hardly surprising there were a few among them. Myers himself had to ask his own following to cool it, BTW.

As for atheists getting kicked out of school, I have to know the specifics of each case. If it's solely because of their atheism, and we're dealing with a public school, it's wrong. Period.

: Derek Copold | July 28, 2008 8:25 PM, you write:

I'm bothered by Myers and Cook's actions because they are striking at the base of our societal concord.

Rod says that too. What societal concord is this? I find it absolutely fascinating that apparently this foreign country I thought I knew so well from television appears to contain people who think it so fragile that someone sticking a nail in a wafer and dunking it in his kitchen waste bin will bring it down about their ears. Is this the old "Culture Wars" thing again?

I find it absolutely fascinating that apparently this foreign country I thought I knew so well from television appears to contain people who think it so fragile that someone sticking a nail in a wafer and dunking it in his kitchen waste bin will bring it down about their ears.

Well, Tony, obviously this one incident won't do it, but it's not the only case we've had over here. There've been a number of cases in New York and San Francisco where antiwar protesters and gay rights protesters have invaded churches and desecrated the host, and the response from authorities has been sluggish. So it's in this vain that you're getting a lot of angry response.

Also, here, you have a case where two very public figures (one of whom is, like it or not, the face of atheism) are actually defending the practice. Is this really what we want? One of the biggest arguments going with this issue is whether you can be moral without God. Stealing other people's things doesn't strike me as very moral, and I don't want it to become a trend. Do we really want to repeat the errors of the French, Mexican and Bolshevik Revolutions? That's why stopping it now is important.

Finally, since you say you're a foreigner, let me clear up the thing about the service being on public property. Schools over here often rent out or make available rooms to student groups. The courts have decided that religious groups must be allowed to use them as well. That's what appears to be the case here. If it wasn't, as I said, there would be flurry of lawsuits from all sorts of advocacy groups.

I'm sure Professor Dawkins will survive Stephen M. Barr's use of sarcasm. Barr makes some good points about Dawkins' factual errors, but seems to fall into the religionist trap of equating darwinism, and atheism, with nihilism.

Derek Copold | July 28, 2008 9:02 PM

There've been a number of cases in New York and San Francisco where antiwar protesters and gay rights protesters have invaded churches and desecrated the host, and the response from authorities has been sluggish. So it's in this vain that you're getting a lot of angry response.

That seems rather tame. In the UK we've had gay rights protestors tossing dung onto the floor of the House of Commons, the BBC late night news invaded and Sue Lawley finishing her bulletin sitting atop a lesbian, and the country didn't fall apart. Peter Tatchell disrupted the Archbishop of Canterbury's sermon, mounted the pulpit and denounced the Archbishop's opposition to gay rights (he was fined £18.60 under a little known 1860 statute). Tatchell, who staged the latter, also tried to arrest Robert Mugabe. If they're only invading churches then you're having an easy time of it, and shame on American protestors for not giving you all a harder time.

Tony,

How many brains do we get if we toss you in the same room with Dawkins, Dennet and Harris?

P.S. This is not am ad hominem attack. I am above that. It is merely a scientific inquiry.

P.P.S. It's not just facts where Barr crushes Dopey Dawkins, it's logic. You guys want more? Here's Nietsche presciently forecasting you masters of dysfunctional distortion coming out of the woodwork:

"They have got rid of the Christian God, and now feel obliged to cling all the more firmly to Christian morality: that is English consistency. . . . With us it is different. When one gives up Christian belief, one thereby deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality. Whoever tries to peel off this fundamental idea—belief in God—from Christian morality will only be taking a hammer to the whole thing, shattering it to pieces."

and,

"Thus the question “Why science?” leads back to the moral problem: Why have morality at all when life, nature, and history are “not moral”? No doubt, those who are truthful in that audacious and ultimate sense that is presupposed by the faith in science thus affirm another world than the world of life, nature, and history; and insofar as they affirm this “other world”—look, must they not by that same token negate its counterpart, this world, our world?—But you will have gathered what I am driving at, namely, that it is still a metaphysical faith upon which our faith in science rests—that even we seekers after knowledge today, we godless anti-metaphysicians, still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by a faith that is thousands of years old, that Christian faith which was also the faith of Plato, that God is the truth, that truth is divine."

Nietsche is the historical precedent of Dawkins and motley crew. Only they don't have the cojones to admit it.

John E. - Agn. Stoic | July 28, 2008 10:02 PM writes:

I don't think that Dawkins did the student any favors with that letter.

He gave the President of UCF a clear choice: stand up for academic freedom or cave into the Catholic lobby.

Of course he'll probably cave in, but he's been told he has the choice and what is at stake.

You might want to look at what Nietzsche means by 'Christian morality', SteveM. And to see in Christianity a derivative of Platonism is probably not what you want to agree with.

Yeah, The Origin of Species was written in the late 1840s and 1850s. The Nietzschean stuff you quote was certainly written between 1870 and 1890. Never mind Darwin, I want his time machine!!!

Jillian,

You frighten me with you naivete. Why would you think that I am not aware of how the Platonic Ideal was integrated into Christian rational thinking?

And how does your observation make half-brained Dawkins (on a good day) any more rational or his arguments any more compelling? (Or less repelling or something...)

Changing the subject sometimes works. But not now...

P.S. BTW, I have no problem with atheism. Just don't claim meaning where there ain't none.

You frighten me with you naivete. Why would you think that I am not aware of how the Platonic Ideal was integrated into Christian rational thinking?

No, it's your naivité. Nietzsche sees Christianity as part of the Platonic, i.e. the integration was the other way around.

A few more points here.

quote: "Looks to me like the latter is the case. Rod and Bill Donahue and the like can certainly try to appeal the judgment in public opinion, but it doesn't seem to be finding real resonance."

I'm not sure if the general public is really aware of Myers' actions at all. Sure, it's been mentioned on some blogs and I suppose on some cable shows (I don't get cable so I wouldn't know), but is this thing really all that big of a news item for the general public? I'd take issues with your description of religious/secular relations in the 1990s and in this decade, but more on that below.

quote: "The less Christian or 'unChristian' ones probably will survive an ideological and political breakdown of pre-Modern or anti-Modern Christianity. For others that have made those varieties of Christianity a core pillar of identity and cultural ideology, it poses an "existential" threat of identity loss, ideological disintegration, and necessity to recoalesce around some other notional basis.

With Modernity slow but relentless as it is to grind down it opposition, that prospect of breakdown is of course both the obsession and the unthinkable for those latter subsocieties."

Right, because those "unChristian" groups have such a high birth rate. And boy, that grid of Modernity must be awfully slow since the advocates of secularism have been predicting for centuries now that modernity's triumph over Christianity was just around the corner. God has died quite a few times now. But somehow he doesn't. Of course, belief in historical progress requires a lot of faith (maybe in Hegel?) in the first place. Or maybe you guys are just getting the date of the atheist version of the rapture wrong. So you've got something in common with t.v. preachers after all.
Anyway, I'd argue that the events of the past decades or so have actually shown that the faith of secularist in that grand narrative of "progress" and "modernity" in which religion slowly fades away has been shaken. After all, religion hasn't gone away, and indeed is generally growing rapidly in places in the world that aren't experiencing lower than replacement birth rates. Sure, Christianity isn't doing so well in Europe. But Europe isn't doing so well population wise itself. And at any rate, with all those Muslim immigrants, religion still refuses to do what it is supposed to do and just fade away. Events in America and the world since 9/11 have illustrated just how important it can be, whether for good or ill, to the workings of the world.
And that really pisses off some secularists. That's why there is all this silly talk from them in America about "theocracy" (by which they really mean a point of view somehow influenced by religion which they disagree with, usually a conservative one). That's also why this crop of "New Atheists" (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc.) has suddenly popped up. It's not as if they have any new arguments against religion. Most of their ideas are little more than recycled Positivism circa 1890. They've just added some anger, ignorance of religion, and myopia of the horrors of twentieth century and how the complicity of modernity in said horrors has cast doubt in many circles (postmodernism anyone?) on the whole "Enlightenment project."
Anyway, the recent furor of atheists such as Dawkins and now Myers doesn't show that secularists are "pushing back" against "fundamentalists." Rather, it points to a suspicion on their parts that the grand Postivist narrative they've been telling themselves about "Enlightenment" and "progress" for so long is a fairy tale. To a certain extent, I guess I can't blame them for being pissed. I'd be pissed too if I based my identity on being a "rationalist" who is all smarter than everyone else, only to see the course of events throw a big monkey wrench in my big theory of how things are supposed to go.

rr

If there really is a Jesus Christ, and he really does transform himself at the priest's bidding, then he is there as an active participant in satisfying the priest's desires during mass. He is also there as an active participant in satisfying the priest's desires during what went on downstairs, with that same priest. He was right there as an active participant in taking away my childhood and leaving me with nightmares for forty years. Instead of transforming those nightmares or preserving that child his only interest was in transforming a host for the child's tormentor.

And he demands my respect! No. What he gets is the contempt he has earned through his own actions. His accomplices and enablers need have no fear that I will lower myself to his level by seeking out new victims to abuse, however if Jesus Christ is in some sense actually present in the host, if I ever came into possession of one the least I could do is to perform a symbolic act of justice and cathartic healing experience by utterly desecrating and destroying it.

"Thomas, everyone isn't as you claim. Just the people you know." KB

TR: Well them and the majority of peoples studied by anthropology or psychology around the world.

"The whole point, Thomas R. is they don't think it IS a symbol."

TR: I was using an analogy, which I assumed could make it more understandable for an atheist. I really hadn't anticipated the idea that many atheists just aren't like most people in even very basic ways that have nothing to do with God at all.

"But if someone can come up with an object example among sane adults that isn't religious where one adult thinks the object, itself, is sentient, and the other adult does not, I'd be interested in hearing it." KB

TR: I don't think they believe they're sentient, but many bikers form deep attachments to their motorcycles. Imbuing them with personalities or seeing them as like part of their body. Some people do this with cars.

And although not an object many people treat their pets as part of their family. I think that's absurd and I don't think it's very logical to think a dog has any more value/sentience than a pig or something. I've also at times been curious at times what eating dog would be like. If a neighbor's dog ran into my property and I cooked it for supper to sate my scientific curiosity, I really doubt the neighbor would say "well you know you don't have the same beliefs about dogs I do."

"Rosa Parks in 1955 and the Olympic protest of Tommie Smith and John Carlos in 1968." TS

TR: Rosa Parks was disobeying a law that restricted the rights of African Americans in hopes that law would end if challenged. Nothing done here involves any law that restricts atheists. This is more saying the mere existence of a certain culture endangers atheists and therefore trying to defame it is defensive.

It's like if Rosa Parks had a white lady sneak into the Daughters of the Confederacy to buy collectibles and destroy them. Or Christians had massive book burnings of "The Communist Manifesto" or "The God Delusion."

"we have a conservative gunman murder two people during a children's play in a liberal Unitarian church, reportedly, because he hates liberals."

TR: This is certainly more extreme. Although this man was probably a nut and not a respected figure. Still there has at times been a demonization of liberal churches I dislike. The Unitarians don't even claim to be Christians anymore. They have every right to have same-sex marriages or whatever they believe so long as it does not hurt anyone. The disrespecting of them and their culture is not anything I like either. Especially when that turns violent as in this case.

"Then I'll be just like you guys. All heroic and sanctimonious and everything. And it'll be swell!"

Amen, Steve. Doesn't it just get really freakin' OLD sometimes? By comparison Papal infallibility is a fart in a windstorm.

"Just when you think you have the answers, I change the questions!" -- Rowdy Roddy Piper.

"Jillian, I'm going to cross-stich your quote and hang it on my wall because it seems to be a good answer to the question that keeps me coming here, namely, 'What is up with those Traditionalist Christians?'

No offense to all you Traditionalist Christians out there."

Translation of Jillian's quote: "Traditionalist Christians are old and in the way."

We understand perfectly. We know very well what happens to such folks when atheism claims hegemony. We'll try to remember the 'no offense' when the reeducation camps open.

"However all three believe God is the guy who spoke to Abraham. The nuances of doctrine aside, it's the same God."

The ideas that God has a eternally-begotten, consubstantial Son, or that the Divinity exists as an eternal Trinity of coequal persons is hardly a theological nuance.

From the Christian point of view, Muslims do not worship the same God as Christians do. The New Testament states that he who does not have the Son does not have the Father either. No offense, but it's unwise for an atheist to try to tell Christians what we believe.

From the Christian point of view, Muslims do not worship the same God as Christians do.

If one follows the Nicene Creed, this is true. Muslims and Jews do not adhere to that creed. However all three religions identify their God as the same fellow who spoke to Abraham.

Whether one calls the differences a nuance or a gaping lacuna, the common origin is thus undeniable.

As well as Mormonism, Rastafarianism is Abrahamic in origin. The Rastafarians believe that Haile Selassie was the messiah, the Lion of Judah, predicted in Revelation 5:5: And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

Ital dietary laws, followed by some Rastafarians, are essentially those of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

"Christians do in fact believe that the God of Islam and the Christian God are not the same." Rob G

TR: Please do not presume to tell Christians what we all believe.

I feel Tony is right that we worship "the same God", although I think he's minimizing the difference. Our interpretation and understanding of that God is different. From the Muslim perspective we do not worship the same God and are essentially polytheist. From the Christian perspective I believe we do worship the same God, but Christian understanding of that God is deeper and more valid.

Perhaps the Orthodox feel different, but I'm not Orthodox so not beholden to their view.

"The notion of Allah in Arabic theology is substantially the same as that of God among the Jews, and also among the Christians, with the exception of the Trinity" Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911

So maybe it'd be better to say "they worship substantially the same God." (with an erroneous interpretation of it)

Rob G | July 29, 2008 9:29 AM you write "Again, I know you guys think you're bright, but please don't try to tell us what we believe."

I wouldn't want to tell you what you believe; however I speak as a former devout Roman Catholic. The fact that I don't now believe in that God probably has a negligible effect on my understanding of the common abrahamic roots of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the other sects I've mentioned (actually I forgot Bahai).

A 'common Abrahamic root' is one thing, worshipping the same God, quite another.

Tony, I'm sure you think the every thing's peachy in your land. I won't comment on your country in the same judgemental tone you take towards us, but I will point out that the increasing outflows of native Britons doesn't seem to support your notion that every thing's fine.

Derek Copold | July 29, 2008 12:43 PM, I think I may have unintentionally offended you by appearing sanctimonious about America and using Europe in some of my comparisons. I guess my European chauvinism is stronger than I thought. I apologise and promise I'm not out to make unfavorable comparisons. Bill Bryson, who has lived in Britain most of his adult life, can tell you as an Iowa-born American exactly how crappy Britain is at its worst, and his travel book, "Neither Here Nor There: Travels in Europe", casts a judicious eye over our fair continent and finds many aspects (not least the plumbing, the service and the food) wanting.

Peace. We don't need unnecessary friction in the discussion.

I think understanding that other people do NOT have the same reactions as you do to the same exact event is an important thing. It is one of the problems with the 'Golden Rule', because what I want done to me is not always what other people want done to them.

But I will note that other cultures eat dogs all the time. And horses. Not too many eat cats. But, any cat of significant size to be eaten would probably be a lot harder to eat, and the pet size first wouldn't stand for it (hard enough to just give them a bath). (Sorry, watch the Travel Channel a lot. Hard to shock me based on what people do and do not eat.)

You don't have to be an atheist for this lack of response. Just not a member of your faith. Indeed, during the early years of some of Protestant denominations, taking Eucharistic wafers with the intent to publicly do bad things to them, to show the lack of results was pretty common.

I'm fairly certain they didn't view the wafer as having any sentience, feelings, and certainly did NOT worry about the feelings of those who did think so.

The fact is, I can understand you would BE upset. But I can no more share that upset, than you would SHARE the upset of those pagans who had their sacred places defiled, their gods and holy days co-opted during the Christianization of, well, just about everywhere that was done.

In the end, the fact that you don't think those Gods exist, and that those holy things actually ARE holy, and just think they mistakenly BELIEVE they are holy, or exist, makes a difference.

good good grief, ya all sing along to this catchy refrain from the wizard of oz: "ding dong your god is dead..your wicked god..your mean ole god. ding dong.. your wicked god is dead."... then try to explain to me how the "omnipotent one" can only whisper in the ears of a choosen few while billions would be satisfied with a simple email????