It’s annoying. I got another copy today of Joan Carroll Cruz’s Eucharistic Miracles, a typical collection of credulous fables about crackers behaving oddly, and I don’t need any more. This very silly book sent someone back about $16.50, plus postage, and it was a total waste since I already have several copies, and I just laugh at each of the ridiculous stories, anyway.
I’m going to get rid of them, though. I’m going to bring one copy along with me on my trip to Kearney, Nebraska tomorrow, and the first person to tell me he reads the blog and wants this book will get it. I’ll even desecrate it with my signature, if you want.
I’ll also bring a copy with me to Philadelphia next week, same rules.
I am not coming home with this trash. If nobody wants ’em, they’ll find their way into a hotel dumpster. Take note, devout Catholics: if you keep sending me this kind of stuff, it will just end up in a landfill somewhere, or worse, in the hands of laughing heathens.
There’s something about the written word that makes BS seem authentic, even though it’s no better than drunken blather.
But I suppose if they understood that problem, they wouldn’t believe that a cracker changes “in substance” even though it changes in no sensibly detectable manner whatsoever. After all, they only believe that because it is written in books…
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I have a collection of books like that from family.
I put them with my Dungeons and Dragons books. They are great reference for lore and creating Zealous NPC blackguard villians.
Please – at least recycle any unwanted copies!
Please do not just throw them away. Recycle them so that the paper has an opportunity to be put to a GOOD use!
If you want to mail it at no expense to me :) I’ll take one haha. I’m always in the mood for a good comedy.
I’ll take one.
I’m just about out of toilet paper.
though the idea is repellant to me…
book burnings keep popping into my head.
How long until the crackerheads show up complaining that, because you aren’t using the books for the purpose for which they were given to you, it’s stealing.
I file all the “Holy” books in with the rest of the fiction. It does help to read them at least once (Bible, Koran, Vedas, Analects, Lao Tze, etc.) to understand people and cultures.
I admit that I too have difficulty reading things that I am not inclined to agree with. But we must be vigilant about absorbing only that which affirms our prejudices and be wary of taking false comfort in the consensus of our peers. Now I understand that you have several copies, why not donate them to a charity or library? They might make a good “happy holidays” present for your scientist colleagues, and (wisper it) it might actually alter their perspective – it’s never to late.. Why not actually grapple with the issues the book presents and read it – you could then review it on this site in good faith rather than simply dismissing the ideas offhand.
they make great ‘book safes’ or ‘handgun hiders’, when you hallow them out.
Would you suggest he donate porn to the library?
because that is all that is, Catholic porn.
Now see, that is why you shouldn’t ban Pete yet. He just turned this post from mildly amusing into sublime. “grapple with the issues the book presents” – that’s just gold.
I see Pete “well meaning fool” Rooke is back with more inane blather. Pete, you now have a blog. That is the proper place to leave your opinions. So go back to your blog and wait for someone to post there. Wait…….
because that is all that is, Catholic porn.
In what way?
PS I have not actually read the book.
Pete,
It started out well, but fizzled at the end.
If you want a book about crackers behaving oddly I could send you Hollis Gillespie’s latest book.
Mmh, I think they got confused. Maybe they thought you might be interested in ‘Euchariotic Miracles’…
I may have missed it. Why are you going to Kearney, NB? Been there. Unless you like watching endless lines of UP trains go by, there ain’t much reason to go there. Might be warmer than Minnesota, but still!
Have you tried selling these tomes to your local used book stores? Or (like the ones in my valley) do they already have so many unread religious books sitting on the shelves taking up space that they won’t buy more?
Is this book sanctioned by the catholic church?
If its not it has no relevance than any other fiction out there. I could just as easily write a book about the miracles of a Winnie the Pooh doll and suggest people read it to “alter their perspective”. It only has meaning to the people who already BELIEVE in it.
Hell, I’m a buddhist and I don’t believe most of the crap I read in my books.
Why not actually grapple with the issues the book presents…?
For the same reasons I imagine you don’t feel compelled to “grapple with the issues” presented by The Three Little Pigs. Cracker magic is beneath serious consideration by any but the most seriously deluded, and it’s about as worrisome or ‘grapple-worthy’ as the fear that the Big Bad Wolf is going to blow my house down.
Pete old boy, if you haven’t read the book, why are you commenting on it? Again, you have a blog. That is the proper place to put your uninformed opinions, not here.
In the same way that The Passion of the Christ was Catholic porn.
Big show, lots of gasping and heavy breathing, some proclamations of greatness backed only by special effects and delusion finally building up to the money shot.
PS I have not actually read the book.
Well of course not, if you sent it to PZ instead. If you haven’t read it, how on earth do you know that it presents any issues at all to be grappled with? Not everything that is published has any merit or reason to be read.
While I’m sure it wouldn’t be a best seller, perhaps there is a market for a book of Eucharistic Non-Miracles.
Stories about how people prayed over a cracker that their sick, elderly aunt would get better… but she didn’t.
or how a priest told his congregation that the magic cracker would help McCain to win the election, and we all saw how that one worked out.
or even how a holy cracker, which through means arcane and mysterious, ended up in the hands of a rougishly-handsome, distinguished and well-educated gentleman, who shoved a nail through it, and who subsequently wasn’t struck down by lightning.
Sure, it wouldn’t be an exciting read, but there would be no end of material…
Ahh Pete, you just don’t get it. And by the looks of things you never will.
Why not give them to psych students? Fine example of various pathologies, I should think.
Pete Rooke (#10): So, have you read The God Delusion in good faith, then? Grappled with the issues? Were you wary of taking false comfort in the consensus of your peers? Why, it might actually alter your perspective.
You see, the Rookie wants us to gets past our differences by converting to his religion. Sadly for the Rookie, it is not the Thirteenth Century. I do not feel compelled to contemplate such absurd notions.
Paper recycling is not really an option these days. Prices have dropped, and a number of recyclers no longer accept paper. A number of those who do are now turning around and shipping what they get to landfills.
Compost is always in demand BTW, so let your neighborhood truck gardener have your excess books.
“Why not actually grapple with the issues the book presents…”
Just how does one grapple with the unsubstantiated and nonexistent? Oh wait, just be gullible – never mind.
“grapple with the issues the book presents” Indeed, Big Science is silent about the issues presented by this book. No satisfactory explanation has ever been offered by a mainstream “scientist” for crackers that bleed real blood, crackers that beat like tiny starchy hearts and crackers that get up and run around under their own power until swatted. Grapple if you can!
(Which reminds me of the old Tom Waits line about the diner porkchop that got up and tried to beat the shit out of his cup of coffee–coffee just wasn’t strong enough to defend itself.)
Recycle, PZ. Recycle.
One of the dividing lines between the skeptical and the credulous is the strong tendency of the latter to accept anecdotal evidence. This doesn’t just apply in religion: you see it over and over again in pseudoscience.
Human beings have a natural love for stories. We especially like to put ourselves into the narratives in some significant way — such as the person who “believed” when others did not, and is therefore rewarded for being shrewd or sensitive or loyal.
If you were to carefully investigate every one of the “miraculous” tales of the eucharist (or any other paranormal or supernatural claim) and demonstrate, step by step, that none of it is accurate, it would make no difference. They’d simply shift to some other story, or insist that there’s still virtue to be found in believing.
Will you include a cracker a bookmark?
Why not flog them on Ebay or Amazon? You might be able to get enough off them that you can buy something worthwile in return.
Crackers behaving oddly?
Isn’t odd their usual behavior — shooting guns in the middle of the night, drinking crappy bourbon and driving pickups at 70 miles an hour through dark forests?
Thus Spake Pete the deluded, fucktard Catholic, popely ass kisser :
I think I found part of his problem. I assume that he meant ‘be vigilant against,” but here he rather seems to suggest that anything that doesn’t fit his already deranged mind should be discarded.
You can say that again. The anti-vaxers are PRIME examples of this.
PZ,
You mentioned a trip to Philly. When, why, what venue. If there is a public talk, I live near enough that if the wife says we are not otherwise engaged, I’d love to compete for the book :-) Alright, the book is uninteresting but a talk would be the opposite.
I wonder, would the book have stories about Jews who stabbed defenseless crackers, causing them to bleed, thus forcing gentle townsfolk to have pogroms.
Amazon says, “Only 2 left in stock–order soon (more on the way).”
More on the way? As the kids would say, “lol”.
Don’t you have a fireplace in your home? You know it’s gets cold up there in the winter. Just toss them in the fire and film it then post it online. Let’s see how those idiots who call for burning pokemon and harry potter like it.
Sili (#34) has a good idea. Every one you sell to some creduloid may be a lost sale for the publisher, and won’t make any difference to the creduloid.
@ Tualha
I have indeed read the infamous God “delusion” and I found it to be a thoroughly slapdash effort. There are genuine philosophical problems for the existence of God (click my name) and the most convincing argument remains that from personal experience which is by no means “proof,” but then that’s why it’s called faith. The paucity of this effort is exemplified in the dismissal of the problem of evil, on the behalf of the religious, when it in fact provides strongest cause for concern for the religious. See Peter Singer’s demolition of D’Souza for evidence: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Phgb67NAaHA.
U should convert you fat sack of shit and bravado.U think ur high mighty saying dont vote hate.But then you go hating onn people beliefs.What piece work u r
You are all evidently unfamiliar with the notion of a “CONTRACT.” When PZ took POSSESSION of the book, there were CONDITIONS attached. Among others, one of said conditions was that PZ would read it and OPEN HIS MIND to the TRUTH that the Eucharist is REAL.
I’m preparing a dossier on this BREECH OF CONTRACT and will be sending it to the U.S. Attorney in charge of PZ’s district so he can be prosecuted TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW!!!!
Look on the bright side!
/me digs deep for a bright side. . . .
Every story in such a book is another datum indicating that NOMA is bunk and “sophisticated” religion is the pasttime of the theological elite!
OK, that was a bit of a pessimistic bright side.
Bigfoot, UFOs, psychics, ghosts, ad infinitum.
“He has no reason to lie.”
Sweet! A txtspk troll! We hardly ever get those around here!
Quick, someone poke it with a stick and see what it does.
God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. But when it comes to evidence, God cannot be discerned from one’s own imagination. It’s just lucky you weren’t born in an Islamic country Pete, because you’d be a heretic preaching the word of Allah with exactly the same justification.
As former preacher Dan Barker said:
“Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits.”
#44
Grammer, spelling, and thinking – Ur doin it rong.
Er, what?
U should convert you fat sack of shit and bravado.U think ur high mighty saying dont vote hate.But then you go hating onn people beliefs.What piece work u r
It’s a comfort to me that as a general rule batshit insanity severely compromises effectiveness.
These books are highly dangerous and should be disposed of by your local HazMat team. Or the Bomb Squad. If too many of them are collected in one place, the collected stupidity spontaneously fuses, forever feasting on itself, and eventually turns in a black hole. Or the pope–this is a matter of some dispute–albeit the older hypothesis that it became a very potent magic mushroom and enabled one to understand revelations has long since been suppressed. In short, it’s a plot to destroy Morris and the Evil Pee Zed!
You’ve brightened up my morning
@#45
BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAaaaa
@ Lowell
It wasn’t a library book was it. I didn’t even consider that it might be, if it is then – although I don’t Dr. Myers would be prosecuted for it – he would definately be liable for any fees required to replace the book.
the most convincing argument remains that from personal experience which is by no means “proof,” but then that’s why it’s called
faithself-delusion. – Pete “rotten teeth” RookeFixed it for you Pete. No thanks necessary.
I expect Pete hasn’t read “Eucharistic Miracles” because it wasn’t bound in human skin.
who is this lowell guy? is he for real or is this a joke?
oh it’s a joke
Mistook that last post (Lowell No. 45) as genuine, sorry.
Oh no, the thread is degenerating even lower than PR’s unintended humor. HazMat, breech of contract, incomprehensible texter. The only thing missing is Cuttlefish.
Lowell at #45:
I’m preparing a dossier on this BREECH OF CONTRACT and will be sending it to the U.S. Attorney in charge of PZ’s district so he can be prosecuted TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW!!!!
Actually, to be pedantic, breach of contract is a civil wrong rather than a criminal offence, so one can’t be prosecuted for it. Furthermore, even if you were talking about a civil suit, your analysis is legally very dodgy; and even if you could establish a breach of contract on those facts, which I sincerely doubt, you’d have a hard time proving substantial damage (what loss has anyone suffered as a result of the breach?), so you couldn’t recover anything beyond nominal damages.
Apologies for the pedantry, but I am a law student.
@ Dave #58
Whether Lowell is serious or not
It’s still a joke
Quick, someone poke [the txtspk troll “PZ”] with a stick and see what it does.
I’ll take “too stupid to notice” and raise you a “turns to stone in the sunlight”.
“breech” of contract? Is that the end the bullets go in? Or did he mean “breach” of contract?
Pete,
You are absolutely correct about one thing. There “…are genuine philosphical problems for the existence of god”, and you are correct again, faith is all there is, and as Puddinhead said, its “…believin in what you know ain’t true.”
You poor, sorry excuse for a thinker. Shake it off, booby.
Yes! I Poed both Pastor Pete and Walton with one post. I win the thread!
Walton, I think you got sucked into a Poe troll. I think Lowell is rehashing some goof-tard’s “contract-breach” explanation from a couple days ago on a different thread.
The folks in Nebraskans for Excellence in Science Education were the ones that got me into science outreach– Including Brad.
If you tell them you know ERV, PZ, theyll think youre really cool.
:P
Yes! I Poed both Pastor Pete and Walton with one post. I win the thread!
I will concede that I was, indeed, fooled. In my defence, I’m not known for my grasp of subtlety, or indeed my sense of humour.
Brainfart. I can’t even blame it on a typo.
>credulous fables about crackers behaving oddly
I don’t know why but I am compelled to type this:
“I enjoyed it much better when it was called Confederacy of Dunces.”
I usually save my junk mail to help start the fire in the woodburner. But a book WOULD go alot futher, just an idea.
@44: Literacy would be a useful skill for an aspiring troll to attain.
Somebody just posted this on Dawkins’ site.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.2331v1.pdf
I usually save my junk mail to help start the fire in the woodburner. But a book WOULD go alot futher, just an idea.
You didn’t Poe me, Lowell, I laughed. Tip for next time: keep you need more spelling mistakes. Nice work with BREECH, though, and the random caps on nouns. Worse grammar would help, too, and less consistent random caps. Cheers!
WTF? Forrest Mims honored by Discover Magazine? http://www.wikio.com/news/Forrest+Mims
Someone sent me a Lee Strobel book. I’ve been meaning to read it out of good will to him, but really I have dozens of books that are waiting to be read that are all far more interesting.
“breech” of contract? Is that the end the bullets go in? Or did he mean “breach” of contract?
Now all that’s needed is for spezio to show up
and explain that yes, indeed,
it’s where the contacts go,
and then the evil jewish lawyers pull the trigger
and shred the law
that they made up
and also the contract
that they also made up
and take all the money
sueing you if you don’t pay
judged by another lawyer wearing fancy robes
with all of ’em getting paid by the word, time, and number of trigger-pulls.
Ah, the battle cry of the legalistic crackergaters –
Once more into the breech…of contract!
Ur doin it rong 2 (xcept if u mean “Kelsey”).
I’m amused that Rooke thinks that the phrase “the issues the book presents” is meaningful. Issues? Books like Eucharistic Miracles are simply pious little bestiaries for the credulously devout of poorly documented supernatural events involving bits of bread or drops of wine. I haven’t read the book, but I am well acquainted with the genre, having grown up in an atmosphere steeped in Catholicism. I am certain that Joan Carroll Cruz writes about wafers that take on the physical aspect of (supposedly) human flesh (which, if it happened at all, was probably a cynical sleight of hand by some exploiter with a concealed chicken liver), wafers that bleed real blood (too bad about the lack of lab tests or checking whether it came from the person experiencing the “miracle”), and people who were “healed” after taking communion. (Only these latter ever seem to leave a credible paper trail — at least in a few rare instances — when the spontaneous remission of a serious condition becomes an excuse to canonize a saint.)
Ya gotta believe! (Because no one can give you any evidence for it.)
I agree with those who said PZ should sell those books on Amazon or e-Bay. He should do the same with all such reading materials he receives, on an ongoing basis. Those who would purchase them would be brainwashed to begin with, so no danger of converting anyone. The proceeds could be sent to AU, the ffrf, PFAW, and other such organizations.
Instead of trash or recycling, how about seeing if anyone in the UMM art department (teacher or student) may be interested in doing some sculpture. People do turn books into some very beautiful things:
http://mustardseedkingdom.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/book-sculptures/
http://weburbanist.com/2007/12/29/creative-sculpture-with-a-twist-3-extraordinary-approaches-to-carving-ordinary-objects/
Hey Pete,
Here’s one for you to think about. According to your holy book, back in the day, your god performed all kinds of highly visible, public miracles. A world-covering flood. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. All the plagues visited on Egypt, then parting the waters so the Jews could escape. Loaves and fishes, walking on water, water to wine, resurrecting Lazarus and himself. I’m sure you can think of others.
Why is it, then, that in modern times, he can’t manage anything more than insubstantial “feelings” that he exists and the occasional apparition? Is there some reason he would give people so much objective evidence of his existence back then, but not now? Is he playing head games with us?
Or perhaps people of faith are playing head games with themselves. Ever think of that?
Mike:
I can’t find the original Discover story referenced there. It’s supposed to be in the December 2008 issue, but it’s not online (double shame on them).
Plleeeeease come to Sacramento.
Hell, I’d settle for Davis.
Must. Have. That. Book.
How about raffling off your copies, then donating the proceeds to a godless group, or gay marriage advocates?
Or how about drinking the proceeds?
“Grapple with the issues the book presents”, huh?
If this book contains the same grade of stories as a book on Marian miracles I read a few years ago, there are no issues to grapple with. You either are gullible enough to believe the stories, or not.
PZ,
Just write ‘return to sender’ and throw them back in the post so they know they’ve wasted their money.
Lowell – you bring me LOLS. You giant sack of sto0pid.
As an ex-Catholic who collects bizarre literature the signed edition would make a nice association copy. Several of us are driving over from Lincoln. See you tomorrow night.
Ur doin it rong 2 (xcept if u mean “Kelsey”).
eh,…er,…yeah. I humbly stand corrected. Wait, maybe it was the basement cat that changed it on me when I pressed “submit”. Yeah, that’s what happened. That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
So… there must be a story in there about two crackers transubstantiating into pasties and heading out to the strip clubs to save souls?
I wonder about your use of the word “credulous.” As far as I can tell from the definition it applies to people, not objects. Can a fable be credulous (gullible), or just the people reading it?
Only slightly off topic–when will Ken Miller come to his senses??? As a woman raised roman catholic, I’m still recovering from the brainwashing I had that I was and always will be inferior to male humans. I am astonished that someone with Miller’s grasp of and defense of evolution is still proud of being a catholic…
Slightly off topic but…I may need help?! A guy at work was eulagising that I shouldn’t shut out god, that until I’ve had “experiential evidence of Him”, I should have an open mind. And do you know what I did? I didn’t say “why doesn’t he do global floods any more? Why doesn’t he do bread for everyone, water in to wine, or resurection anymore? What is your evidence? Why don’t you believe in Leprachaunes, or fairies”. I just shrugged, and let hime have his say. He’s a nice guy, I like working with him. Do I need the argument? What would I achieve? Did I do wrong?
PZ: if they keep sending you copies, please consider donating one to Atheist Alliance International or James Randi Educational Foundation for their fundraising auctions. Signed by PZ Myers, the Mad Desecrationist, it’s a collectible. As I recall, a Bible signed by Penn & Teller fetched a nice little price at one of the conventions.
Sell to a used bookstore, and donate the cash to a suitably irreligious cause?
I’ve heard the usage before and took it to mean “the people telling them”.
The roommate of my evangelical sister gave me a book once in the hope that I would be “saved.” I kept it to be polite; then returned it some years later never having read it.
Chappy (#96),
You probably did the right thing. If he keeps bugging you, ask him to stop. If he persists, talk to your manager. Getting into a religion argument at work is full of fail.
“Never give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs. Otherwise, they will trample them with their feet and then turn around and attack you.”
Matthew 7:6
Though you pound a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, Yet his foolishness will not depart from him.
Proverbs 27:22
How long, O naive ones, will you love being simple-minded?
And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing
And fools hate knowledge?
Proverbs 1:22
Because they hated knowledge
And did not choose the fear of the LORD.
They would not accept my counsel,
They spurned all my reproof.
So they shall eat of the fruit of their own way
And be satiated with their own devices.
For the waywardness of the naive will kill them,
And the complacency of fools will destroy them.
Proverbs 1:29-32
Naturally, since Scripture is always correct, the reprobates that write and infest this blog do, and will continue to do, precisely as Scripture says they will.
Although Catholics are a hopeful and generous people, when that hope causes you to ignore the great truths of scripture, the effort is wasted. Do not give in to the temptation to send gold to this rabble.
It is not right to give the children’s food to dogs.
Mark 7:27
Let the dead bury their own dead.
Luke 9:60
“Can a fable be credulous (gullible), or just the people reading it?”
Only people can be credulous. Just as a fable cannot be gullible, it cannot be credulous (though it may be credible to some people…).
PZ Proves Truth of Scripture Again | November 12, 2008 4:51 PM
Every cult writes language like that to get suckers like you.
Walton said –
You’re going to have to work on both if you want to survive in Law.
@102
Huh????
Scripture is for fools. Fools hate reality.
Whoever’s pet fundie this is better get in here right now. I am not cleaning that up.
Indeed. They hope the priests don’t rape their kids, but when they do they’re very generous in letting them get away with it.
recovering catholic #95 wrote:
Within Catholicism, there is an elite strain with a long intellectual tradition of disavowing the “anthropomorphic” and “superstitious” elements, retranslating the tenets of the faith into metaphors for reasonable secular beliefs — and then quickly reverting back to anthropomorphic and superstitious concepts once you’ve convinced yourself and others that you didn’t mean any of it literally. I’m guessing that’s where Miller falls. As Blake Stacey pointed out, books like this make the more “sophisticated” believers uncomfortable. It interrupts and trips them when they’re reassuring the rationalists that none of that is what “true Catholicism” is about.
Chappy #96 wrote:
Naw. I don’t think so. He knows where you stand. You have to pick your battles.
I think it would have been wrong to pretend to be convinced or impressed by his argument, though. Playing along and pretending to “pass” as religious allows people to dismiss atheism as a marginal and distasteful belief, which even atheists find embarrassing. It would be similar to a gay man talking about his “girlfriend” so that bigots don’t have to recognize that they’re friends with a gay person. You don’t get social change that way.
But of course that’s not what you did.
Thanks, Tualha @101, I appreciate the response. Work and religion IS a fail. Just p***** me off relionuts force me in to that choice!
#102
Only a moron would hide behind an ancient scribblings to defend their empty ideas or warm their ego. Your fantasies don’t count here in reality. You little, angry, loser.
A raffle is a great idea. It really is.
I’d throw in a buck.
Proceeds to NCSE? Hell yes. I’m there.
Once they figure out all they’re doing is raising money for science education, they’ll stop. Everyone wins.
Let the dead bury their own dead.
Luke 9:60 – some stupid godbot
Well that’s just plain daft. If they’re dead, they’re not going to be doing any burying, now are they? Really, you Christians just don’t think things through.
Are you making a stop off in Lincoln? I might be able to take one off your hands.
Whoever’s pet fundie this is better get in here right now. I am not cleaning that up.
Shoot, that’s what happens when you poke them with a stick. Sorry about that.
Have fun in Kearney, say Hi to my friend Robert I. Price (RIP) in the Physics Dept. and be sure to take pictures of the Great Arch!
BTW, according to that blurb you linked, your experimental organism is squid! What happened to the zebrafish?
“Really, you Christians just don’t think things through.”
I’m not sure, but I think the love word-games Nick. That way it’s easier to look clever.
At this point I’m forced to believe that lining a bird cage with Cruz’s Eucharistic Miracles would be just cruel — cruel to the bird, that is.
[polly wanna cracker… sorry, couldn’t resist]
Pete Rooke on PZ’s blog:
Pete Rooke on his own blog:
Amateur.
PZ
You should glue a copy of a particularly colorful piece of hate mail you’ve received to the inside cover, write a nice little note opposite, and auction away.
I’ll bid on that.
Chappy
You did the right thing, but that doesn’t make it hurt any less does it? Take a deep breath, save your strength for something more important.
Hey Sastra,
Thanks for your opinion, I appreciate it, and agree.
It’s just a bit weird (the situation) to me – I genuinely never expected that choice to be relevant to what I do. But here we are. Respect, guys and gals.
– T
Thanks, ggab @121. Night, guys and gals
I think it’s very mean of you not to have it scanned by your university library and post it so we can all have a howl.
>o|
>>they make great ‘book safes’ or ‘handgun hiders’, when you hallow them out.<< Lovely bit of irony in that.
PZ, maybe you should have Friday Story Time every Friday. You could recount for us one of the many ‘eucharistic miracles’ and we could comment on the story of the week. Sounds like fun to me.
Ooh ooh! I want one! Where are you going to be in Philly? Will there be a pharyngulafest? i simply must attend.
Or we could slam a big print copy of the bible onto our genitals. That sounds just as fun.
You can always use them to prop up a wobbly table.
Oh, come to New York? My 8-year old son loves stories about wacky religious beliefs, particularly after I relayed the cracker incident to him. He’s also deeply interested in science; I have to record the Science channel on DVR 5 out of 7 nights.
So are Jews still allowed to send you books? I have multiple books that credulously talk about the miracles surrounding the lives of great Rabbis. One even has a story about a Rabbi being miraculously saved from an accusation that he had desecrated a Eucharist…
In a landfill?
At least have the decency to recycle PZ!
Shred the pages and uses as carbon-rich layers for compost bins. It’s what I do with the BNP leaflets, a fitting demise for contemptible shit, I feel. Let it grow roses.
Joshua Zelinsky #131 wrote:
See, that’s the problem with secular humanism. We can’t come up with our own miracle anecdotes. Otherwise, we could be breathlessly recounting tales to each other of ‘this one time when some creationist told Richard Dawkins that he didn’t believe in evolution, and then the Doc stretched out his hand, put a pebble in it, and it turned into a frog right in front of the creationist’s eyes!!!!
And I bet there would still be folks who’d refuse to believe in a natural unguided process of gradual development based on replication, variation, and selection over time — even with a story like that. Pearls before swine.
Sell them on Amazon and give the proceeds to the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Or is that too much of a hassle?
Sastra, and then “the atheist dared the gods to strike him down. Not just Jehova, but Zeus and Krishna and all the others. And nothing happened!” See it isn’t that hard…
I’m short on religious fiction. Send me a copy.
P.Z. Will you send me a copy of one of Chris Hedges’ book signed?
Posted by: Sastra | November 12, 2008
See, that’s the problem with secular humanism. We can’t come up with our own miracle anecdotes. Otherwise, we could be breathlessly recounting tales to each other of ‘this one time when some creationist told Richard Dawkins that he didn’t believe in evolution, and then the Doc stretched out his hand, put a pebble in it, and it turned into a frog right in front of the creationist’s eyes!!!!
Sounds like that could be a Penn & Teller trick.
Ok, if I’m around, I’m so in for Philly. Where and when?
Maybe because the last time he showed up he lost some lame bar bet and ended up crucified and hasn’t bothered since.
I vote using the books for heat. Any halfway decent wood heater should be able to keep you nice and toasty for several hours with about 8 or 9 books. Post photos of the reverse desecration too. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust and all that jazz. If I’m allowed to vote twice then put me down for propping up wobbly tables too. Bibles also make good door stops if you have a door to the dining room or kitchen that isn’t hung square and the door is always closing itself. If you are ever asked for a bible by a guest then you get the joy of pulling out the one from underneath a table leg or the one propping open the kitchen door – the look on their face will be priceless.
And for PZ Proves Truth of Scripture Again @ #102 – what episode is that from? I’m a huge South Park fan and for the life of me I can’t place those quotes. Let the dead bury their own dead? Is that from the Worcestershire sauce zombie episode? Dude, that was hilarious. Remember when they killed Kenny?
“Within Catholicism, there is an elite strain with a long intellectual tradition of disavowing the “anthropomorphic” and “superstitious” elements, retranslating the tenets of the faith into metaphors for reasonable secular beliefs — and then quickly reverting back to anthropomorphic and superstitious concepts once you’ve convinced yourself and others that you didn’t mean any of it literally. I’m guessing that’s where Miller falls.”
I think this is deeply insulting to Miller. In fact, he is a devout Catholic, and happens to believe that there is no inherent conflict between science — properly understood (i.e. sans the metaphysical assumptions) — and religion (properly understood — i.e. sans its ridiculous sorties into properly scientific issues). This is not to say that there is no overlap whatsoever, but it is to say that the overreaches are much clearer than the overlaps.
Too rushed to read all the comments, so sorry if this has been suggested.
Sell them on Ebay, PZ! Rake in some coin from the suckers!
Eric, you must be new here. The fact that something might be deeply insulting will give many here no pause for thought, in fact it was more than likely meant to be deeply insulting – finely crafted and honed with a liberal sprinkling of profanities and blasphemies.
Sorry about your troubles with Catholics, but that line just cracks me up. “…crackers behaving oddly…” LoL!!
You bring out the best in us, Pete. And thanks for the compliment; I’m glad you appreciate how much effort we put in.
Whoops, hang on, I’d forgotten the profanities and blasphemies: fuck God and Jesus; fuck them in their stupid asses.
Happy?
Hi Pete Rooke,
You do understand that hanging out in the comment section of a blog you so clearly disagree with while trying to generate traffic to your own blog is kind of weird right. I mean you’re free to do so but its kind of gross.
I don’t particularly like Desperate Housewives but I would go so far as to hang out on a Desperate Housewives comment board and continually make comments. Maybe it’s because I prefer to be apart of discussions that I enjoy rather the go out of my to be offended and then continually stick around waiting to be even more offended. It’s rather odd, no?
would = wouldn’t
(off topic)
omg. help. there is a one word term which means homogeneous population. ive been trying for like a year now and I can’t remember what it is.
Pete, I find everything you say deeply insulting. Why do you continue to insult me with no pause for thought?
PZ, maybe you could just talk a walk down to your nearest catholic church and hand then over? Theyd probably get a kick out of them, youd be rid of them, and your local catholics would be less inclined to go buy theyre own copy (thus saving trees).
Just a thought.
eric in #141:
I’d love to see an explication of that last sentence. Where, exactly, do they “overlap”?
But read the post again, the one from recovering catholic, #95. Is what she’s talking about a matter of religion or science? How about just plain old morality with a basis in fact? Religion often pretends to have a say in that matter but it fails just as badly as when it makes one of those “ridiculous sorties” you mention.
Myself, I bolted from the RCC very soon after I realized that the principles of justice apply to me, too. Everything else fell into place pretty quickly after that, and what a relief it was not to strain my credulity anymore. By their fruits you will know them, and all that.
Kel, it’s okay to insult people if it’s in the best interests of Gawd & Jebus – much like it’s okay to hate them, persectute them, torture them and murder them – and, in Pete’s case, irritate and nauseate them with frequent posts and occasional disturbing and inapplicable analogies.
And being a believer is the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card – all you’ve got to do is say ‘I’m really, really sorry; pretty please with sugar on top, Mr Jebus; honest I am’ and he forgives you – so you can go and do it all again.
The bible. It’s the scoundrel’s bible.
Uh uh, be careful! Like the bible (and all Murdoch ‘newspapers’) it might be so full of shit that it is not suitable as toilet paper.
Only recycling recommended is as compost.
No excuses, Pete is committing a hate crime against me and the billions of cells that make up my body. He’s insulting my DNA, the 3,200,000,000 series of characters that make a “Kel”, he’s insulting my memory and everything that makes my personality, yet he has the power not to insult me but won’t take that course. It’s like he thinks it’s okay to commit hate crimes just as long as he isn’t the one on the receiving end.
Kel, thanks for your vote!
What did I vote for?
I have five copies of the Book of Mormon, three Bibles and a vintage copy of Mein Kampf I’ve been given over the years. I’ve read one of the Bibles. The Book of Mormon was just too weird to get through, and I don’t speak German.
Mein Kampf (inherited from an old German relative) has always been I problem for me. I don’t want it to find its way to anyone who would use it as a centerpiece for their hate group so I can’t give it away or sell it, and burning or otherwise destroying a book that advocates the burning of books seems hypocritical.
It is not right to give the children’s food to dogs.
Mark 7:27
Quote-mining from their own book. The story/myth/fable goes like this: A Gentile woman askes jeebus to drive a demon out of her daughter. He arrogantly replies, “It is not right to give the children’s food to dogs.” She comes back with this line, “But even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” Snap! Jeebus says something like, “Shit, she’s got me there.” and then says, “Okay, okay, the demon’s gone. Now getoutta here.”
Enkidu,
That really seems paranoid and not a little obsessive (unless you’ve got an autographed copy or something).
From Wikipedia: “By the end of the war, about 10 million copies of the book had been sold or distributed in Germany (every newly-wed couple, as well as every front soldier, received a free copy)”. I don’t think burning it (or just throwing it away) would deprive the world of anything.
Me, I’d try to sell it and get some $$$.
Enkidu, you could sell it to another Pharyngula reader. Also, you may want to consider talking to a used book store dealer. An earlier edition of Mein Kampf might be actually worth a fair bit.
PZ Proves Truth of Scripture Again, #102
Completed it for you. D)
If one leg is that short, it’s time for a new table.
It is dated and autographed. Is it a genuine autograph? Where was Hitler on March 25, 1940?
Yeah, I could sell it, but anyone who’d want it is not someone I’d want to have it. They can find another copy without my help.
Enkidu, I suspect a lot of book collectors would want that simply for the historical value. The key is to find generally a book collector, not a Nazi memorabilia collector. Or alternatively, donate it to a library. There are probably many libraries that would want a copy.
Timothy Wood@148:
Something like “monoculture”?
If you stab the book, will black currant jam leak out?
Did I miss it, what time is your talk in Kearney tomorrow?
Enkidu, you might try contacting major university libraries. Their special collection programs might be interested or be able to point you in the right direction.
Enkidu, thanks for showing me up :(
Seriously, your copy sounds like it has historical value.
I now suggest, echoing others, that you donate it to a reputable library.
As noted, not just a stupid godbot, but a stupid quote-mining godbot.
In context, the verse is about Jesus being a nasty cult-leader control-freak. Guy says “Hey, I’d love to join you, but let me bury my father first.”
Jesus responds with the line above, which I can only infer means that he thinks it would be better for the father to rot where he lies and for his son to immediately start being a sycophantic follower of Jesus, absolutely no delays tolerated.
I would pay $1 a piece for these books, plus shipping costs.
I would prefer to deal with larger volumes, 20-30 books in a shipment. So if you have piles of other christian titles I might be able to cover those also.
I am not a christian, but I love getting them to pay my rent.
In fact, he is a devout Catholic, and happens to believe that there is no inherent conflict between science — properly understood (i.e. sans the metaphysical assumptions) — and religion (properly understood — i.e. sans its ridiculous sorties into properly scientific issues).
I think that’s a fair point. I do like Gould’s concept of the “non-overlapping magisteria” (though, being neither a scientist nor a theologian, I appreciate I’m not the most qualified person to argue the point). In the end, as I understand it, the role of science is to observe and describe the material universe and how it works. The generic idea of a God or gods as creator of the universe is not empirically testable; if God exists, then He is inherent in the universe and, ex hypothesi, since we can’t perceive things outside of our own universe, we can’t know what a universe without God would be like. So science can tell us how the universe works, how material laws operate and how things have developed to their current form. But it isn’t the role of science to tell us why the universe is here in the first place.
Of course, where religions claim a specific divine or supernatural intervention in the material world – as the Bible does in several places, e.g. with the parting of the Red Sea or the resurrection of Christ – then this is, in theory, an empirically testable claim of material fact. Either these phenomena did physically occur, or they did not. But the problem is that, because they are miracles – suspensions of the normal laws of nature – we cannot, by definition, evaluate whether or not they occurred by reference to normal physical laws as observed in quotidian reality. And because they all happened in the distant past, and the only evidence we have consists of accounts transcribed from oral traditions which may or may not be accurate, we have no basis on which to evaluate their truth or falsehood.
So it does, in the end, come down to faith. Empirical evidence and reason can only take us so far.
If this were a court of law, and the question was “On the balance of probabilities [this being the civil, though not the criminal, burden of proof], has it been established that Jesus of Nazareth was a divine being in human form who was physically resurrected from the dead?”, then the answer is an unequivocal No. The evidence we have consists of second- and third-hand written accounts of uncertain provenance. Ditto for virtually every other religious claim, of any religion.
But this is where faith comes in. According to the Gospel account, the disciple Thomas was much like the people in this forum. When he was told of the resurrection, he wasn’t satisfied with hearsay evidence; he wanted clear empirical proof. He was, in modern terms, a sceptic. (And understandably so.) According to the account, Jesus, of course, provided such empirical proof by physically appearing to Thomas; but he then said “You have believed because you have seen. But blessed are those who have not seen, and yet still believe.” (or words to that effect) In other words, according to Christian teaching, we are lucky precisely because we have no clear evidence; and the people who will be most rewarded are those who believe despite the lack of empirical reasons to do so. (Of course, this then begs the question of why one should choose to believe in Christianity and not in any of the other religious traditions and sects which exist.)
What PZ is not telling:
He is afraid of sleeping on the couch after his wife kicks him out for reading crackers in bed.
Walton @172
The whole crux of the doubting Thomas thing comes down to the second sentence of your last paragraph; “According to the Gospel account”.
The whole thing is a dodge. These guys are basically saying that the fact that they have no evidence proves that they are telling the truth.
Personally I was thinking that they thought he might be interested in Eucharistic Murders.
Or maybe it was something more like Erotic Massages…
What I don’t get is how faith is meant to be a reasonable position. When you are talking about the suspension of the laws of the universe in order for an event to occur, isn’t it far more likely that the event didn’t occur as said? Faith it seems is just a tool to suspend critical thought.
But it isn’t the role of science to tell us why the universe is here in the first place. – Walton
It’s unwise to make pronouncements about what the role of science isn’t, or what it can’t explain, given the history of the past few centuries.
With regard to miracles, the only rational approach is to assume they do not happen unless and until undeniable evidence is provided that they do. You say they happened (if at all)long ago, but that’s not what many churches say – yet they cannot produce any good evidence. If they happened long ago, but not now, when and why did they stop? Why do the reports of miracles now so closely resemble those of earlier miracles, if the latter were real and the former not? Gibbon has a good passage on this somewhere. He also notes that one of the supposed miracles of the New Testament, the darkness that occurred during the crucifixion, would certainly have been noted by Pliny and another author I can’t recall, who collected reports of unusual occurrences.
“Faith” is just irrational belief. There is absolutely no reason to accord it any respect. Indeed it is foolish and dangerous.
Faith is belief without evidence. Belief without evidence is irrational. Empirical evidence and reason have given us every material thing we have that’s worth having, from drugs to computers; faith has given us nothing. The advocacy of faith as a virtue promulgates the notion that belief without evidence trumps belief based on evidence, a poisonous perversion of reason. Faith is a vice, not a virtue.
eric #141 wrote:
I don’t see how this contradicts what I wrote (nor is it particularly insulting to Miller.) You’re simply expanding on my point. Miller apparently belongs to that longstanding humanistic strain of Catholicism which for the most part successfully separates its metaphysics from what you’re calling “ridiculous sorties into properly scientific issues” — an example of which would be the superstitious and fanciful stories of crackers spouting blood found in books like Eucharistic Miracles. I cannot imagine Ken Miller sending this book to PZ Myers (unless it was a joke.) I suspect he’d find the tales both unconvincing and faintly embarrassing — like fellow Catholics praying to a stain on the linoleum which looks vaguely like the Virgin Mary.
This does not make him any less of a “devout Catholic.” There are different varieties of Catholicism. In seeking to keep his religious beliefs out of science’s “magisteria” — the workings of the natural world — Miller has cut himself off from the hoi polloi and their implausible modern miracle stories, and kept his belief in miracles to a bare minimum. He doesn’t take most of it “literally.” His God is not “anthropomorphic.”
But of course he does take it literally, and of course his God is anthropomorphic. That’s the “overlap” you mention. If every story in the Bible is a metaphor with a secular analog, then there’s literally no reason to be a Christian. That would just be atheism interpreted within a favorite narrative structure. And if you take all the human-like traits away from God, you don’t just lose the beard: you lose mind, intent, values, intelligence, and choice. You lose the magic from up above, imposing its form on an otherwise bottom-up world.
So the rational, scientific approach is first embraced, and then quickly discarded as soon as it becomes inconvenient and uncomfortable. And those superstitious, literal elements are given a suspiciously enthusiastic lip service. It looks to me like the humanist Catholics do and don’t believe at the same time, trying to parse out special areas of “reasonable” supernaturalism and make fine distinctions between what is literally true, symbolically true, metaphorically true, and psychologically true, flipping back and forth loosely, following rules which are pretty darn flexible.
Walton@172
There is is a vicious circle in this position. That faith is a reliable way to recognize the truth in itself requires faith. It is self-fulfilling and unprovable. It is the same kind of reasoning used by suicide cults who claim that if you kill yourself at the appointed time, your spirit will spend eternity at the hands of the nirvana du jour. You cannot show that their faith was in vain. Faith alone does nothing, even in the Christian world. It must be faith directed towards the Truth, as faith in Allah will just get you burned.
All in all, we need to remember that faith is another word for confidence, and people who specialize in it are con(fidence) artists.
Walton @172:
That story sounds utterly implausible to me, and I’m surprised you’ve not given it some sceptical thought.
Thomas was a disciple – within the story he’d devoted himself to Jesus, hung around him, seen miracles right left and center (including raising of the dead), then conveniently disbelieves this particular miracle? Come on.
If Thomas had been a sceptic, he’d’ve been a disciple only if he’d already been convinced by credible evidence, in which case, why suddenly disbelieve and require proof?
Maybe Thomas was a sceptic the way Lee Strobel is.
JM at #181: I see what you mean, but I suspect that it wasn’t that he doubted Jesus’ capacity to do miraculous things; I suspect he was simply applying scepticism to the accounts of others around him. Remember that, according to the gospel accounts, it was Mary Magdalene, a woman, who was the first to see Christ resurrected, and told the disciples about it; Thomas was probably, in keeping with the social culture of his time, inclined to be sceptical of a woman’s account, and could well have assumed she was hysterical with grief. But obviously there isn’t enough information in the Gospels for us to know the answer.
But the main point is that scepticism is not a modern invention, nor was it absent among the people of Jesus’ time. Many people throughout history have been disinclined to believe in purportedly miraculous events without strong empirical evidence in their favour. (And rightly so; I’m sure we could list hundreds of purported supernatural occurrences in history which have later been shown to be fake.)
I think it’s perhaps a personality trait. Some people’s minds operate more on reason than on poetry, others more on poetry than on reason; and the balance is struck in different places in the characters of different people.
Personally, I get chills when listening to Fauré’s Requiem or to a really good choral version of the Battle Hymn of the Republic. Why? I don’t know. It isn’t rational. But my character is imbued with a deep sense of wonder, beauty and meaning in the universe, one which I can’t justify with reference to reason or empiricism. Seemingly, some people just don’t have that; it seems that there are some who can simply evaluate everything with reference to cold, hard logic and evidence. But I wouldn’t trade my mind for theirs.
For someone like me, then, the difficult question is not so much “why believe?” as “why believe in this as opposed to any other religious doctrine?” And I don’t have a good answer to that; the reality is that, among those people who are inclined to religiosity, most are more likely to stay within the religious tradition in which they were raised or which is most prevalent in their culture, rather than evaluating all the world’s religions and making a choice of the most plausible. It is not rational for me, say, to accept Protestant Christianity because it’s the most prevalent tradition in my culture and family background. Hence why I looked into many different traditions – Catholicism and the Latter-day Saint movement, for instance. I have specific reasons for rejecting the latter two; but I would not claim to be knowledgeable about many other traditions, and so, while I believe in a God, I don’t profess to believe exclusively in one religious tradition. I prefer to be open-minded and to believe that there are many paths to God.
Should have been paying closer attention. I’m in Omaha and would have taken the day off for a trip to UNK.
See, that’s the problem with secular humanism. We can’t come up with our own miracle anecdotes.
A hurricane hit Houston dead on, there was no damage to my house and I didn’t pray – IT’S A MIRACLE!!!
I crossed the street at a busy intersection, wasn’t hit buy a car, and I didn’t pray – IT’S A MIRACLE.
I studied for a test once, i passed with an “A”, and I didn’t pray – IT’S A MIRACLE.
I used to stay up at nights praying for god to make me not gay – nothing happened. You can take your prayers and miracles and shove them up your ass.
Hmmm. Let’s see. Idiot 3rd rate professor with a committed faith in atheism receives book that describes miracles. Crank dismisses them out of hand.
EXplain then to us, Crank/Little Paul; why is it that testing done on all the miracles listed in Cruz’ book show that:
1) The blood type of each all come from an AB donor; a generally uncommon type but VERY common in Semitic races, and
2) The actual pieces of flesh come from striated heart muscle tissue.
How did they manage to perpetrate such a fraud over the course of centuries, even before the idea of blood typing became known?
Not that I expect you or your Idiotarian Horde to consider such questions. . .even for a moment.
Just keep on keepin’ on there, Little Paul. Faith, be it either in God or Darwin, really is a wonderful thing, isn’t it?
Hmmm… which dungeon dweller is this one???
Any guesses?
And I love listening to Gorecki’s Symphony of Sorrowful Songs and Gregorian chant, both of which are Christian in origin. But I also really like Indian artwork, some of which involves religious themes — is that supposed to be evidence for the Hindu pantheon.
Oh please, Walton — rejection of religion does not make one an automaton, and indeed, some of the most inspiring literature I’ve read, that conveys the wonder and beauty of the universe, is in science writing. Consider:
It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. […] Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
Tell me that Darwin (who wrote that final paragraph in Origin of Species) is not in awe of the universe.
Oh, and by the way, I agree with you on the issue of sending you books. Such gifts are wasted on functional illiterates.
Then give us your name and adress so that we can make sure you don’t receive any books. Fair is fair after all.
My liver still works
MIRACLE!!!!!!
Why don’t you shred the books, mix the shredded paper with concrete, and lay the concrete in the bottom of a trench? After all we know that America was built on Christian foundations.
Walton #183 wrote:
As Tulse points out, this is equivocating the non-rational with the irrational. There is nothing “irrational” about aesthetics, poetry, and emotions. Being moved by a piece of music is not a false conclusion; it’s not a derived conclusion at all. Neither reasonable, nor unreasonable.
An example of an irrational reaction to music would be if you decided that, because you get chills when listening to Faure’s Requiem, you must be the reincarnation of Gabriel Faure himself! No, you can’t speak French, and no, you can’t recall any details of his life or time period, and no, you can’t read or play music — but you just KNOW this is so, because — well, if everyone felt what you felt, they’d just know that the best explanation for your feelings is that you must have been the composer in another life.
I think you have to add in some sort of false conclusion or inference for the non-rational to become irrational.
And I’m a skeptic that loves poetry, so shove that one.
I am so fucking tired of the meme that you can’t be a rational skeptic and love the arts.
And I love listening to Gorecki’s Symphony of Sorrowful Songs and Gregorian chant, both of which are Christian in origin. But I also really like Indian artwork, some of which involves religious themes — is that supposed to be evidence for the Hindu pantheon.
No, I wasn’t claiming that enjoyment of religious music is somehow “evidence” for a particular God or gods. But I was pointing out that there is no explicable reason why human beings enjoy music (or, for that matter, art or poetry).
…this is equivocating the non-rational with the irrational.
I understand the distinction, and I apologise for the sloppy wording on my previous post (it was more of a thought-stream than a coherent argument, as, indeed, is this post).
And I understand the point you’re trying to make about drawing inferences of fact. It is, indeed, perhaps irrational to found one’s religious beliefs solely on a mystical feeling that “God is present”. (The LDS are particularly known for doing this; their recommendation as regards the Book of Mormon is not to seek to analyse it historically, but rather to pray and open one’s mind to the presence of God – believers being assured, in the passage known as “Moroni’s Promise”, that God will let you know the truth of the scripture.) I would agree that, where the facts all point to a particular conclusion (e.g. that the Book of Mormon is fabricated), it is positively irrational to rely on a non-rational feeling as a basis for rejecting that conclusion.
But as regards conventional Christianity, I don’t think the facts all point in a particular direction. Rather, we’re faced with a paucity of good contemporary evidence; there simply isn’t enough historical source material (unsurprisingly, given how long ago the purported events occurred) to make a valid historical judgment with any degree of certainty. In such circumstances – where neither reason nor empiricism allow one to reach a conclusion – I submit that relying on a non-rational feeling, such as that of the “presence of God”, in reaching one’s conclusion is not an inherently irrational choice.
http://www.pvv.org/~shane/stasj/pics/humor/BibleWarningLabel.jpg
Why single out artistic expression Walton? All expression, all ideas are inexplicable?
“I submit that relying on a non-rational feeling, such as that of the “presence of God”, in reaching one’s conclusion is not an inherently irrational choice.”
Boy doesn’t that sound stupid. It’s completely irrational. There’s no reason, no evidence for a god presence. A feeling isn’t a rational reason for anything to exist, it’s emotional. Sure emotions exist, but that’s like saying anger or malice is evidence of demons.
But I was pointing out that there is no explicable reason why human beings enjoy music (or, for that matter, art or poetry). – Walton
Not so at all. They have the evolutionarily important function of binding the social group together. There are non-human parallels in quite a few species. For the individual, they also provide opportunities to attract sexual partners – rather like the peacock’s tail or, a closer parallel, the bower-bird’s bower, they are a way of showing quality as a mate. This isn’t an off-the-cuff suggestion Walton; there’s quite a bit of literature on both of these likely functions.
But as regards conventional Christianity, I don’t think the facts all point in a particular direction. Rather, we’re faced with a paucity of good contemporary evidence; there simply isn’t enough historical source material (unsurprisingly, given how long ago the purported events occurred) to make a valid historical judgment with any degree of certainty.
In such a case, one rational response is to look for parallels – which we find in Mormonism, Scientology, the cult of John Frum and other more modern religions. We see that people believe in them quite as fervently as in Christianity, yet a dispassionate look at the historical evidence shows they are rubbish: based on crass errors if not lies. It is therefore rational to conclude that the same is likely to be true of Christianity, especially when it is rife with conceptual and moral absurdities (1+1+1=1, Jesus was both wholly God and wholly man, vicarious atonement, eternal damnation). Moreover (this isn’t really of a piece with the rest of this comment), the internal evidence of the gospels surely shows quite clearly that Jesus, if he existed and was reported anything like correctly – and if he wasn’t, where’s the basis for Christianity? – expected the end of the world to arrive in the lifetime of at least some of those he spoke to. It didn’t; he was wrong; hence Christianity is false. QED.
Why in the world are you going to Kearney, NE? That’s what I’d really like to know.
Walton-But as regards conventional Christianity, I don’t think the facts all point in a particular direction. Rather, we’re faced with a paucity of good contemporary evidence; there simply isn’t enough historical source material (unsurprisingly, given how long ago the purported events occurred) to make a valid historical judgment with any degree of certainty. In such circumstances – where neither reason nor empiricism allow one to reach a conclusion – I submit that relying on a non-rational feeling, such as that of the “presence of God”, in reaching one’s conclusion is not an inherently irrational choice.
Oh my gosh when I was a child I was positive that Mermaids existed. After all they were in stories from around the world and reportedly seen by various people of many different cultures. How could this be I wondered if they were not real at least at some point in time. At the time it didn’t occur to me that it was because the stories of mermaids were past on by sailors to different cultures. Did my belief in Mermaids have any justification? No. Because we have no evidence that they ever existed except in the mind of people who past their stories around to different cultures who formed their own versions of mermaids. My belief and feelings that the stories were true didn’t make them true.
But as regards to whether mermaids existed, I don’t think the facts all point in a particular direction. Rather, we’re faced with a paucity of good contemporary evidence; there simply isn’t enough historical source material (unsurprisingly, given how long ago the purported events occurred) to make a valid historical judgment with any degree of certainty. In such circumstances – where neither reason nor empiricism allow one to reach a conclusion – I submit that relying on a non-rational feeling, such as that of the “existense of mermaids”, in reaching one’s conclusion is not an inherently irrational choice.
Hence why I looked into many different traditions – Catholicism and the Latter-day Saint movement, for instance. I have specific reasons for rejecting the latter two; but I would not claim to be knowledgeable about many other traditions, and so, while I believe in a God, I don’t profess to believe exclusively in one religious tradition. I prefer to be open-minded and to believe that there are many paths to God.
So Walton, I’m curious. Did you look into Zues? Odin? Ra? Allah? Any number of Native American traditions? What was the reasoning behind your sorting mechanism as to which traditions you were going to investigate and which ones you were going omit?
I think I should add that a belief in mermaids in itself isn’t especially harmful to anyone. I’m not basing any decisions in my life on whether they exist so what’s the harm. But if I couple a belief in mermaids with the dogmatic idea that mermaids want me to drown every man I come across then it becomes dangerous and harmful.
Seamaiden75 at #201 and #203: I understand the parallel. But why are we so quick to assume that mermaids don’t exist? As far as I’m concerned, they might. Like you said, there isn’t sufficient evidence to reach a clear conclusion. I would never dogmatically state that “mermaids don’t exist”. Ditto for ghosts and other aspects of the supernatural.
And even if mermaids don’t exist, many people still derive inspiration from stories of their existence – just as they do from religious traditions.
So long as mermaid believers don’t go around drowning all non-mermaid believers in the name of the sacred mermaid, or insisting that the scientific evidence for mermaids be taught in schools, I don’t have a problem with people choosing to believe in mermaids. Similarly, there’s nothing inherently wrong with choosing to believe in God.
Walton, there is nothing wrong with you believing in some type of god. If it serves to make you feel better, fine. We just won’t join you. Now find something else to discuss other than politics and economics.
That’s the problem, Walton. Believers do commit violence against non-believers and advocate for the teaching of their beliefs as facts (or, more recently in the USA at least, for not teaching facts that contradict their beliefs).
If believers were as benign as your example, then we wouldn’t have a problem with it. It would be like PZ’s knitting example in Expelled. It would just be a hobby. But in practice, that’s not what tends to happen.
Now find something else to discuss other than politics and economics.
Was I talking about politics or economics? I thought I was talking about mermaids.
Walton, you had come the conclusion that you would believe in god and/or mermaids. End of that story. What next (but just not politics or economics)?
There is a quantitative difference between believing in the existence of plausible but currently undiscovered creatures and the “supernatural”. That being the latter usually includes its undetectability in its definition. It is that that makes belief in it irrational. Whereas mermaids, bigfoot, etc. are not defined to be undetectable, just elusive.
That’s the problem, Walton. Believers do commit violence against non-believers and advocate for the teaching of their beliefs as facts (or, more recently in the USA at least, for not teaching facts that contradict their beliefs).
If believers were as benign as your example, then we wouldn’t have a problem with it. It would be like PZ’s knitting example in Expelled. It would just be a hobby. But in practice, that’s not what tends to happen.
It can’t really be just a “hobby”; belief in a religion is, if fully accepted, something which inevitably must affect one’s ethical choices and personal relationships. As C.S. Lewis said, “Christianity is, if true, of the utmost importance, or, if false, of no importance at all. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.”
At the same time, forcible imposition of belief on others is never a good thing. God, if He exists, clearly gave us free will (otherwise we would all agree). Religious freedom is therefore an imperative; and any belief which is forced on people, whether directly (via coercion and indoctrination) or indirectly (via social convention and pressure) is worse than worthless. I can’t imagine that a benevolent and sane God would value that kind of “belief”.
I agree entirely with the principles outlined by Jefferson in the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom: Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical…
So I’m not keen on authoritarian organised religions (such as the Catholic and LDS Churches), and I’m against theocracy and any kind of state intervention on behalf of any religious sect.
Any kind of state intervention? Heck, if that’s the case, then go right ahead and believe whatever you want, Jesus, mermaids, fairies, etc. But realize you’ve ceded that you won’t use your religious beliefs to demand things like bans on gay marriage or abortion, or limits on stem cell research, or outlawing of pornography or gambling, or fight against evolution in schools. If all religious folks agreed to that kind of “nonoverlapping magesteria”, and refused to demand their religious beliefs be accommodated by the state, there wouldn’t be an issue (or “militant” atheists).
…and refused to demand their religious beliefs be accommodated by the state…
“Accommodated” != “supported”. Everyone’s beliefs should be accommodated. No one’s beliefs should be privileged above those of everyone else.
But realize you’ve ceded that you won’t use your religious beliefs to demand things like bans on gay marriage or abortion, or limits on stem cell research, or outlawing of pornography or gambling, or fight against evolution in schools.
I agree that none of those should be determined on solely religious grounds. Nor should any issue of public policy; any law, backed by the coercive power of the state, must have an objective secular justification.
Tulse – if you enjoy chants you might want to take a listen to a fairly new one called “Chant Music for the Soul’ by the Cistercian Monks of Stift Heiligenkreuz. It is quite nice.
So schools should “accommodate” Hindus and not serve meat? Businesses should “accommodate” Orthodox Jews and not open on Saturdays, and accommodate fundamentalist Christians and not open on Sunday? Medical schools should “accommodate” Jehovah’s Witnesses and not demand that students learn about blood transfusions? Groups that believe in child marriage should be “accommodated” by allowing adult men marry 12-year-olds?
In a pluralistic society, it isn’t possible to “accommodate” everyone’s beliefs. Indeed, in many cases “accommodating” some religious beliefs goes against the beliefs of other religions. The point isn’t for the state to “accommodate” religious beliefs, but for it to stay out of religion (and keep religion out of the state).
Thanks for the recommend, Patricia. I’ve always had a soft spot for the Cistercians, ever since I spent a couple of weeks in a Trappist monastery when I was a rather religious young Catholic.
“Accommodated” != “supported”. Everyone’s beliefs should be accommodated. No one’s beliefs should be privileged above those of everyone else.
So the belief that I should drown every man I come across should be “suppported”?
If people kept their beliefs as a personal private matter and didn’t try to stick their beliefs into government and other public areas then we would have no problem with them but that is not what is happening.
Case in point the Catholics are gearing up to fight Obama on the issue of abortion. If they kept their beliefs to themselves and just didn’t have them. Then fine. No problem. But that’s not what is going on, they are trying to enforse their dogmatic beliefs onto the rest of us and because the government isn’t agree with them they are claiming that their right to be predjudise to abortions are being trampled on. It doesn’t matter that the rest of us don’t agree with them their religion isn’t being “supported”.
oops enforse-enforce
predjusdise-prejudice
Walton @183,
1. You may find this of interest, then:
October 2008 opens a thought-provoking two-year cycle of lectures and special presentations at the Library of Congress that highlights an explosion of new research on music and the brain.
2. Sastra addressed that @193; I doubt you’re unusual in that respect; I’ll also draw your attention to the term numinous:
The numinous is the _mysterium tremendum et fascinans_ that leads in different cases to belief in deities, the supernatural, the sacred, the holy, and the transcendent. […] The idea is not necessarily a religious one: noted atheist Christopher Hitchens has discussed the importance of separating the numinous from the supernatural.
Walton @204:
Really. If by mermaid you mean “a mythological aquatic creature that is half human, half aquatic creature (e.g. a fish or dolphin)”, then because they’re biologically untenable, not just unevidenced in other than tales.
Do you also think Centaurs might exist? Minotaurs?
Actually, humans are the offspring of mermaids mated with minotaurs.
That explains my parents. *rimshot*
OT but where will PZ be in Philly? Anyone know?
And Jains should be accommodated by making the killing all creatures, including mice, rats, and insects, illegal, and getting us all to sweep in front of us when we walk lest we squish a bug.
And Buddhists should be accommodated by making us all vegetarian.
Because we just don’t see hybrids like that in nature. We don’t see wolfmen, birdmen or centaurs either. It completely contradicts everything we know about science.
Our last fishy ancestor was around 380 million years ago. So while you may see the occasional monkey tail express itself in development, you won’t see a half-human half-monkey.
I was reading through your blog before I went to watch you talk in Kearney and I had to stop right after I read the one about Ben Stein’s movie. I continued reading it after I got back from your talk and I saw this blog about asking you for your ‘Eucharist Miracles’ book. I’m so mad! Why didn’t I read this blog before I went to see you?! Anyway I asked Dr. Carlson to ask you for the book for me at lunch tomorrow. fingers crossed.
By the way, how does it happen that people at a movie theatre would recognize you and NOT Richard Dawkins??
Ashlee, PZ was on his home turf there, so nobody involved with the film was surprised to see him at the theatre. Professor Dawkins, however, by virtue of his being hundred if not thousands of miles away from where the Ass. Prod. might have expected him to be, was inadvertently hiding in plain sight. :-)
You make bat boy cry.
I see. Thanks.