Piddling On The Vandals
By Mitch Berg
Some of my best friends are atheists.
Me? Nah. I’ve never found the scientific case against God remotely compelling. The cases of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are so hate-clogged they’re pretty easily dispatched; indeed, I’d love to see debate between one of them and a genuine Christian thinker, especially one that wasn’t moderated by some NPR suckup; it’d be like a lawnmower going through a cabbage patch. Christopher Hitchens is more acerbic – and easier, since while he rejects “God”, he still buys the notion of some kind of universal energy of one kind or another.
But at least there’s an argument you can try to respect.
Well, for some of ’em anyway.
The big problem with the latest wave of atheists isn’t their beliefs – because their beliefs are irrelevant. It’s all about their hatred of faith. Read their blogs, watch their cable-access shows – it’s less about “the case against God” and more “aren’t people of faith Christians stupid!” It’d be like packs of fundamentalist Christians filming themselves mocking (stereotyped) gay behavior for cruel, cheap yuks, if you can imagine that (and, as a rule, you do have to imagine it).
No. I mean just like it.
Reading the local Sorosphere’s fawning coverage of PZ “Meyers” Myers’ extended game of “monkey in the middle” with a consecrated host (the wafer from a Catholic communion that’s been blessed by a priest – which, orthodox Catholics believe, “transubstantiates” into the literal body of Christ as related in the Last Supper) is…depressing. Myers, a biology professor and one of the more prominent atheist bloggers, declaims about religion from atop what he seems to consider a mountain of logic. And he pays, indeed, some lip service to common decency, as most people, faith aside, would understand it…:
I don’t favor the idea of going to somebody’s home or to something they own and possess and consider very important, like a graveyard—going to a grave and desecrating that. That’s something completely different. Because what you’re doing is doing harm to something unique and something that is rightfully part of somebody else—it’s somebody else’s ownership.
And yet…:
The cracker [host, presumably] is completely different. This is something that’s freely handed out.
Well, no. It’s not.
I’m not Catholic – and, like most Protestants, I take an allegorical rather than literal view of the host. But it’s not remotely “freely” handed out. The Catholic communion involves jumping through some spiritual hoops (as does the Protestant communion, in most cases) to “commune” with God; in the Catholic tradition (stop me if I’m wrong, Catholics) involves being in a “state of grace”, of having ones’ sins forgiven, before receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. Not everyone who walks into a Catholic Church gets communion. The host is no more “freely” handed out than is an “A” in one of Myers’ classes. I presume.
So the stunt Myers is defending – a college student, Webster Cook, who kyped a consecrated host from a mass, drawing all sorts of emotional reactions from Catholics, some of them terribly overwrought – was as much vandalism (devaluing something of value to another by defacing, damaging or destroying it) as theft.
To Myers, of course, it’s a big joke; like stealing a hat from a kid on the playground and tossing it around among the other little reprobates. It’s a cruel little giggle – after all, it’s not your hat that you’re having fun with! – and if the kid gets pissed and decks you, you can run to the principal and get him in trouble.
I read PZ Myers, and I can’t feel angry, really. All I can feel is sad.
And not just in a spiritual sense. This is a guy – and a huge pack of suckups – who think this is cutting-edge shiznit. Sticking it to the man priest; Effing with a host (hahaha, they think it’s the body of Jeeeebus!)
I was going to write “I’m not sure what bothers me more – the stunt, and Myers’ puerile reaction in support, or the local Sorosphere’s fawning coverage and belief that it’s “news” and that Myers is a profile in courage for doing it” – but I stopped.
The answer is “neither”.
Here’s why: this is probably good news for people of faith. If this – and Dawkins, and Harris – is the best atheists can do, God is not only alive, but He is so confident in our ability to withstand the real challenges to our faith that He’s sent us some puffed-up, arrogant, self-important buffoons to laugh at.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:01 am
I’m not Catholic either, but I believe you have to be one to take Catholic communion.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Adolescents-poking their finger in “daddy’s” eye.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:24 am
I heard from a reliable source that PZ’s last name was spelled “Meyers”. 😉
July 18th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Yeah – I love that. “I’m gonna desecrate this host that you find so important, but if you misspell my name, I’ll pitch a fit.”
July 18th, 2008 at 8:36 am
I’m Catholic. Yes, the consecrated host is the Body of Christ. These self-congratulatory fellows up at Morris think they are being clever and cute, but all they are is the modern-day successors to the Roman soldiers who beat up Jesus on the way Golgotha. All you can do is pray that some day they will set aside their hatred and blindness. Jesus will be there for them if they choose to accept Him.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Mitch asserted: “Me? Nah. I’ve never found the scientific case against God remotely compelling.”
While the scientific case for God is airtight.
Nothing you wingnuts love more than playing dress-up and pretend.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:54 am
While I’m saddened that a college student chose to desecrate the Eucharist, I’m even more appalled that this professor at U. of Minn., Morris has so much disdain for Christians, more particularly Catholics. From looking at his blog, this is just a vile, hateful man. After seeing this, there is NO WAY I would let a child of mine go to college there. The atmosphere in the biology dept. just can’t be good if this man is filled with so much hatred for the Christianity of the majority of his students.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Nothing you wingnuts love more than playing dress-up and pretend.
So speaketh ignorance and pride. Not everything that is true is scientific, a child should be able to see that.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:05 am
PZ and the gang are hilarious – they’re kind of an atheist version of Kent Hovind: They do fantastic in crowds of like-minded people. They’ve created echo chambers to accentuate the applause. Get them outside into the real world and even people inclined to agree with their basic premise distance themselves.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Angryclown is praying against you right now, Terry.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:11 am
ac droned:
Nothing you wingnuts love more than playing dress-up and pretend.
The Wingnuts are from Wichata – 900km down the road – we’re the “saints”!
July 18th, 2008 at 9:15 am
While the scientific case for God is airtight.
No, but people like this are put in the unenviable position of needing to disprove God’s existence. Since Christians live in a state of grace by faith, we don’t have to prove anything.
The irony is, well, divine.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Mitch,
I consider myself a “devout atheist,” but I agree with you that many prominent atheists’ hatred of faith is bad for everyone. It does nothing to advance our argument or make us seem rational, anyhoo.
Personally, I believe that faith can be a very good thing–if your faith helps you to lead a fulfilling a moral life, more power to you. I don’t find it necessary to lead a moral life, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing.
I do want to say, however, that I reserve the right to be angry about faith that is shoved down my throat. I am angry about James Dobson. I am angry about “under God” in the pledge. I am angry about legislators that called an emergency session to interfere with the Terri Schiavo situation.
That’s not the same thing as hating faith, and I wish more atheists would keep the distinction straight.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:30 am
“I don’t find it necessary to lead a moral life”
I like the alternative reading of that sentence. It’s probably more accurate.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:34 am
AC said “Angryclown is praying against you right now, Terry.”
I’m praying against AC’s prayers against Terry. HA! And crossing myself with Holy Seltzer.
You would hope that Minnesota’s “vaunted” university system could come up with better than that clown (apologies to AC).
July 18th, 2008 at 9:41 am
MoN,
man it’s hard to have a real conversation with you wingnuts. I keep trying, hoping someone will actually be interested in an intelligent conversation. But if it’s easier for you, feel free to make wild assumptions about my immoral, fornicating liberal lifestyle.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Thanks for the go ahead Jeff.
You think you lead a moral life, because you define morality. That’s simple. Ted Bundy lead a moral life under that defintion.
I try and fail everyday to lead a moral life as defined by my faith. But I try.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:50 am
“…I reserve the right to be angry about faith that is shoved down my throat.”
Some context and some examples might help.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:14 am
I’m curious how James Dobson “shoves faith” down Jeff’s throat. Oh wait, Jeff is just “angry about James Dobson”, which is even more confusing.
Anyone know how faith gets shoved down throats? I’ve never seen it, personally.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:21 am
MoN, if I “define morality,” you get to choose which religious code of ethics best fits your lifestyle.
I try every day to lead a moral life based on our secular code of laws, and based on the principle of doing unto others as I would have them do unto me.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Oh, please, not the ‘all morality comes from religion’ argument. That one always ends up in the Morass of Epistemology.
Hitchens is an interesting case in that he really has a blindspot when it comes to religion. He certainly believes in morality (in his own, at any rate), but his rhetoric gets sloppy when he tries to identify the source of that morality and he often attacks his questioner as a means of defense. Hitchens has said that he believes in the numinous, yet he seems unable to believe that the numinous effects us only by making us find certain things aesthetically pleasing.
I’m convinced that Sam Harris is a fraud. He has made the parts of his CV that lend his arguments the most authority impossible to verify.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Mitch,
There is no scientific case against God, that’s, as AC said, just your fiction.
Unlike neo-cons, most people get the idea that disproving a negative, prove God doesn’t exist, is as stupid as “Saddam has to prove he doesn’t have WMD” – or “make the homeless guy prove he doesn’t have a home.”
The facts aetheists bring up usually are pretty accurate, such as questioning the great flood that killed every last animal, insect, etc.. on earth except for what was in Noah’s Ark – I suppose you believe that literally? Regardless, that’s what I’ve seen/heard/read – from aetheists, they don’t claim to have proof God doesn’t exist.
But your vitriole about vitriole is self-indicting, they do nothing in aspousing hatred for faith that you don’t do in aspousing hatred for the left.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:30 am
oh, and before Liliput goes ape, I’m not secretly an aetheist, but I suppose you’ll ask me to prove it. What evidence will you require?
July 18th, 2008 at 10:33 am
He’s talking about athiests, not Godless Commies.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:37 am
penigma, if you’re going to use fancy words like vitriol and espousing, spelling them wrong reduces the effect somewhat. Especially when you use them twice in a sentence that just barely makes any sense.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Well he can’t spell Atheist either, so that just proves he ain’t one!
July 18th, 2008 at 10:47 am
There is no scientific case against God, that’s, as AC said, just your fiction.
OK, to word it more precisely; the lack of scientific proof of God, and the un-testability of the hypothesis of God, which leads some to dismiss the notion of God.
Unlike neo-cons, most people get the idea that disproving a negative, prove God doesn’t exist, is as stupid as “Saddam has to prove he doesn’t have WMD” – or “make the homeless guy prove he doesn’t have a home.”
A reference to neocons, an Iraq reference, and a drive-by petty defamation – but no actual substance. Amazing.
The facts aetheists bring up usually are pretty accurate, such as questioning the great flood that killed every last animal
That’s not “accurate” so much as “an empirical attack on a story which, if taken literally (as fundamentalists do) certainly makes sense, but is a pointless strawman against an allegorical view of the Bible”.
I suppose you believe that literally?
Now, Peev? In all your years of reading this blog, you’ve missed the many, many times I’ve referred to my belief in an allegorical view of the creation story?
Why, it’s almost as if you don’t actually comprehend what you read, but instead look for hot-buttons to set you off on extended rants!
Regardless, that’s what I’ve seen/heard/read – from aetheists, they don’t claim to have proof God doesn’t exist.
Strawman. Many of them say that since God can’t be proven, he doesn’t exist.
But your vitriole about vitriole is self-indicting, they do nothing in aspousing hatred for faith that you don’t do in aspousing hatred for the left.
Leaving aside your comical spelling – grow up and learn how to argue.
I don’t espouse “hatred” for anyone. Never have, never will, and you’re showing (for the umpteenth time) your intellectual immaturity by suggesting it.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Another day dawns and the Meyers’ captive “cracker” sits there unmolested and smirking.
It looks like Meyers has punk’d his flock of kooks and MiniSoros Depends. He strutted around, flapping his gums, but when it comes time to put up or (for the love of God!) STFU he’s proving that he doesn’t have the stones to touch those hosts.
The score on day 10:
the “Cracker”: 10 contented, unmolested days
PZ Meyers and his flying monkeys: ZERO
==================
I can picture AC bowing and scraping to a little plastic Bozo doll festooned with incense sticks.
==================
WTF?? Now peeve-penema-leftover has hatched another personality?
I hereby resolve that from now henceforth, the drooling moron formerly known as peeve-penema-leftover-whatever he’s calling himself today shall (in the interest of saving space and time) be called the “Multiple Personality Moonbat”, or MPM.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Everybody’s talkin’ ’bout bag-ism, shag-ism…
I don’t know why certain atheists pick on Christianity with as much focus as they do – so many Christian churches have done everything but renounce God to appease and try to appeal to the masses.
Flip through the various church channels some time – I caught part of a black Baptist church service from Texas not long ago. That preacher was preachin’ about the Holy GHOST, baby! He was puttin’ it down for the MESS-I-AH. They weren’t watering down their message for nobody – and the pews were full. That’s what churches really ought to do. Give it ALL the way up for the Holy Ghost.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:51 am
JeffR:
I consider myself a “devout atheist,” but I agree with you that many prominent atheists’ hatred of faith is bad for everyone. It does nothing to advance our argument or make us seem rational, anyhoo.
Agreed!
Personally, I believe that faith can be a very good thing–if your faith helps you to lead a fulfilling a moral life, more power to you. I don’t find it necessary to lead a moral life, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing.
And that is a reasonable approach to the whole thing – one you share with my thin film of atheist and agnostic friends.
I do want to say, however, that I reserve the right to be angry about faith that is shoved down my throat. I am angry about James Dobson. I am angry about “under God” in the pledge. I am angry about legislators that called an emergency session to interfere with the Terri Schiavo situation.
Not sure that Dobson is being shoved down your throat; “under God” is certainly a contention, and I suspect we disagree; I disagreed with the Schiavo special session (as well as the myopia of the “court über alles” crowd) in the blog and on the NARN show.
That’s not the same thing as hating faith, and I wish more atheists would keep the distinction straight.
Ditto.
Thanks for stopping by.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:52 am
so many Christian churches have done everything but renounce God to appease and try to appeal to the masses.
The Unitarian Lord’s Prayer:
“Whoever,
wherever,
whatever,
wherever,
whenever.
Amen”.
It’s an oldie but a goodie.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Looks as if PZ is a lily-livered chicken.
His “cracker” ploy is like slapping a Mennonite . . . it’s risk-free to be a tough guy when PZ knows the Mennonite is constrained by his religious faith from thrashing PZ for his insolence.
Catholics are all about forgiving people who sin. We’d be sad that a heathen desecrated a sacrament, but I’m pretty sure the official Catholic response would be “Father, forgive him; for he knows not what he does.”
If PZ wants to show he’s got real street cred in the religious symbol desecration game, he ought to take on a militant faith, dare I suggest certain sects of Islam? Maybe post a YouTube of PZ re-enacting Andres Serranno’s ‘Piss Christ’ but substituting a Koran? Be sure to publish PZ’s home home address with it so everybody knows what a tough guy he is and where his family lives. Worked out well for Salman Rushdie and Theo Van Gogh, shouldn’t be a problem in Morris.
Otherwise, PZ’s just a loud-mouth bully.
.
.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:18 am
The lack of scientific proof of God, and the un-testability of the hypothesis of God, which leads some to dismiss the notion of God.
I’m afraid its more definite than that, at least for atheists who base their lack of belief in God on science.
Most except Wittgenstein’s aphorism ovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen as true, meaning that the metaphysical does not exist.
But I think most atheists fall into the ‘Im an atheist, but I’m spiritual’ column, which means that their problem is with the monotheistic religions.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
My old chum Swiftee observed: “I can picture AC bowing and scraping to a little plastic Bozo doll festooned with incense sticks.”
Indeed, old bean. We missed you at Sunday services!
On a personal note, I’m given to understand that your dear mother has come down with a spot of the pox. I’ll put her on the Klown Prayer Chain presently!
July 18th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Thank you AC, very civil of you I’m sure.
You must not have heard, though; I’ve changed my faith tradition and Bozo’s out.
McChurch is much more my cup of tea; do you twig?
Oh, and AC? Please do tell your sister that consorting with entire soccer teams in such a fashion will simply not help her (oh, how to put it?) “unfortunate” social position.
I remain & etc.
Swiftee
July 18th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Of course, Mitch makes fun of the Unitarians’ religious beliefs without anyone calling him a bigot.
And as someone who was raised and confirmed Catholic, I can tell you that I never once saw anyone grilled on whether or not they were Catholic before being given the host. So, yes, it is freely given.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Of course, Mitch makes fun of the Unitarians’ religious beliefs without anyone calling him a bigot.
Rubbish. I make fun of Unitarians, Catholics, Lutherans, Atheists, and my own Presbyterian Church with equal aplomb.
No, the true failure is that no liberals leapt to the defense of Unitarianism.
And as someone who was raised and confirmed Catholic, I can tell you that I never once saw anyone grilled on whether or not they were Catholic before being given the host. So, yes, it is freely given.
So that whole “you gotta be in a state of grace to take communion” bit is just a typo?
July 18th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
And, Stoo, why would noting the malleability of Unitarians’ beliefs be “bigotry?”
They tend to admit it themselves. It’s one of the draws of that particular denomination.
July 18th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
I make fun of Unitarians, Catholics, Lutherans, Atheists, and my own Presbyterian Church with equal aplomb.
You make fun of Lutherans? Well, we’ll forgive you, but you’re going to get some nasty looks. Ya, you betcha.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
There are reasonable atheists (Steven Den Beste comes to mind) who will freely admit that denying the existence of God is as much a leap of faith as believing there is a God. It’s the ones like Dawkins and Myers who are the Fred Phelps of atheism in that they profess to testify and convert others to their faith, while driving the reasonable away from them.
Some folks worship science as divine and all knowing. They’ve not been in the trenches. Go look up all the fun physicists have with the Cosmological “constant” (is it really a constant when it seems to be varying and only God can actually get it tuned in to reality? [irony intended]).
Science is a tool. Using that tool properly is smart. Worshiping it is pretty damn stupid.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
So that whole “you gotta be in a state of grace to take communion” bit is just a typo?
I’m simply saying that in practice, anyone can get communion. I certainly don’t know anyone who was denied communion for using birth control (which would probably empty out the churched rather quickly).
And, Stoo, why would noting the malleability of Unitarians’ beliefs be “bigotry?”
Why would pointing out that transubstantiation is essentially ritualized cannibalism be bigotry? It is the eating of putatively magically transformed human flesh.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Why would pointing out that transubstantiation is essentially ritualized cannibalism be bigotry?
Don’t know that anyone called that bigotry, per se. At best, it’s a theological argument reduced to the absurd; at worst, kinda nausea-inducing.
It is the eating of putatively magically transformed human flesh.
No, it’s the sacrifice – again – of the Son of God. (Which is a place where Protestants break from Catholics in their interpretation; Christ died once; we don’t kill him again for Communion).
And I don’t honestly care what Catholics want to believe it is; I’m not going to vandalize their hosts any more than I’m going to urinate on a Quran for the fun of it, or turdbomb a Planned Parenthood clinic. Playing vulgar games with other peoples’ holy relics is just kinda bad from.
July 21st, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Come on, Dis, you surely must know there’s quite a difference between what is held as official Catholic religious teaching in the halls of St. Peter’s, and what is done in the local church in the sticks. I mean, just drop by St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis sometime.
Doesn’t invalidate Mitch’s point. Or validate PZ’s proposed vandalism.
.