posted
Whatever. A minor nitpick: Religious people do not fail to earn my respect, rather they manage to lose it. Respect is the default.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I've got one for you KoM:
a) At negligible cost to me, I can avoid causing distress to people because of their cherished beliefs (the cost and distress are easily evidenced) b) I don't care, and I cause it anyway
Applies to Myers's call to steal the wafers. Not only disrespectful of the beliefs, but uncivil and mean.
May apply to some degree to other behaviors, like being careful not to give any impression of respect for beliefs one believes are mistaken.
I think Myers is trying to cause distress to the people he believes are behaving poorly in response to this incident - those who call it a hate crime or kidnapping, or who have harassed this kid, called for his expulsion, and threatened his life.
He certainly doesn't have any particular regard for the beliefs of common Catholics, but I think he views their offense more as collateral damage.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus: Were you referring to say Buddhist or Taoists shrines where they ask that you not take pictures? Just curious. I personally always refrained from taking pictures there even when alone.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A week or 3 ago someone from Hatrack posted a link to this list of fallacious arguments. I took the time to read through all of them and since than I have enjoyed being able to recognize when they crop up in all areas of life.
On a semi-related note, this thread has reminded me of the importance of clear, simple, unassuming statements.
posted
The ones that I'm sure about were usually Buddhist temples although I'm sure Taoist shrines were included.
Although not a temple, the link to the Terracotta Museum was partially out of personal amusement. Unlike the account presented, by the time I got there four years after, the guards had probably given up. The 'no photographs' sign was still there, but with no guards, practically *everyone* was taking photos, whether SLR cameras down to cellphone cameras, white or Chinese.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: But I thought his original post was severely misguided. It’s not a matter of freedom of speech — PZ has every right to post whatever opinions he wants on his blog, and I admire him immensely for his passionate advocacy for the cause of godlessness. But just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. And there’s a huge difference between arguing passionately that God doesn’t exist, and taking joy in doing things that disturb religious people.
[snip]
I think there is some similarity here. It’s an unfortunate feature of a certain strand of contemporary atheism that it doesn’t treat religious believers as fellow humans with whom we disagree, but as tards who function primarily as objects of ridicule.
[snip]
It seems to me that the default stance of a proud secular humanist should be to respect other people as human beings, even if we definitively and unambiguously think they are wrong. There will always be a lunatic fringe (and it may be a big one) that is impervious to reason, and there some good old-fashioned mockery is perfectly called for. But I don’t see the point in going out of one’s way to insult and offend wide swaths of people for no particular purpose, and to do so joyfully and with laughter in your heart.
posted
I do think there's something to be said, as a tactical measure, for making people froth at the mouth and totally over-react to minor things. It makes no difference to the hard core, but there are presumably people out there who are just barely believers, who might be swayed into
a) Examining what they really believe about the crackers b) Considering whether they want to be on the same side as the mouth-frothers and death-threat-utterers.
I observe that someone has now lost her job over this, for using a work email to send death threats.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Having read his post, I appreciate the measuredness of his response. I think his parable is flawed, however, at least in the telling.
Alice had something she valued highly. Bob believed she should not value it highly. So Bob destroyed it. For her own good.
In this case, I don't believe any of this (the original theft of the communion wafer; Myers' subsequent boasts) is being done with the good of the harmed in mind, KoM's protestations notwithstanding. I think its motivated by simple cruelty and a joy from feeling superior; the thrill of being able to hurt someone who can't hurt you back.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact, theists can hurt us, and do, every day. Read, for example, this. One way of getting oblivious bullies notice that others exist, and make room for them, is to shove an elbow up their nose. It's hard to ignore someone who is hitting you.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: MnIndy: Do you see a parallel between this case and the furor in Denmark (and later the Islamic world at large) over cartoonists' depictions of Mohammed? It seems unlikely that these Catholics would take kindly to being compared to Islamic extremists, but death threats over the fate of a host suggests it's not an unfair characterization.
Myers: Of course! Both are demands that quirky sectarian peculiarities be given undue respect by those who don't believe in them. Furthermore, the majority of the email I'm receiving is making it explicit: they are telling me that I should not abuse their sacred icon, but that I should instead go do something sacrilegious with the Koran.
...
The idea that Jews, for instance, want to steal consecrated wafers as an element of evil Jewish rites has been circulated fairly often, as a preliminary rationalization for oppression.
Curiously, many (but still a minority) of the email messages I have received have 'accused' me of being Jewish, addressing me as "jew boy" or "liberal pinko jew."
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I think its motivated by simple cruelty and a joy from feeling superior; the thrill of being able to hurt someone who can't hurt you back.
I think it's motivated as a response to the original assault and death threats against Webster Cook.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: In fact, theists can hurt us, and do, every day. Read, for example, this. One way of getting oblivious bullies notice that others exist, and make room for them, is to shove an elbow up their nose. It's hard to ignore someone who is hitting you.
I don't see why that type of logic applies to group dynamics.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh? Theists hurt atheists and minority religions every day through sheer obliviousness to our existence. So, make them aware of the said existence by poking them. It's a bit like Gay Pride parades: People may object to having assless chaps shoved in their noses, but at least they won't be able to ignore a large subset of the population anymore.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I observe that someone has now lost her job over this, for using a work email to send death threats.
Good.
quote:Considering whether they want to be on the same side as the mouth-frothers and death-threat-utterers.
Just don't be surprised that people consider, often, whether they want to be on the same side as mouth-frothers like PZM.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amending my previous statement: after reading more background I don't ascribe the same motivations to the young man who took the wafer (Cook) as I do to Myers. I think Cook was probably making a statement, or was perhaps a victim of circumstance; I think Myers is being a bully.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do feel there is a difference between, in effect, "Nyah-nyah-nyah" and "I'm going to kill you for that".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think he's being a jerk, but I think to be a bully you have to actually have some sort of power over the subject of your bullying. He's mercilessly and insultingly making fun of a belief held by group of people in a blog. That's not exactly a threat to anyone who doesn't choose to read it.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
I think he's being a jerk, but I think to be a bully you have to actually have some sort of power over the subject of your bullying. He's mercilessly and insultingly making fun of a belief held by group of people in a blog. That's not exactly a threat to anyone who doesn't choose to read it.
I don't even see how what PZ said could be construed as a threat. Despite what some people have said, if a random person had come into my Catholic church when I was young and got in line for the Eucharist, he would have received it and been able to walk out without anyone noticing.
He didn't tell anyone to disrupt a service. He didn't say he was going to run in and steal one. He asked if anyone could score him one, he'd show what desecrating it would really look like. That's it.
Not while in a Catholic church. Not in a parishioner's house. Just privately, and post it on his website that people are free to look at or ignore.
And again, he's talking about doing things to a cracker. It's just mind-boggling to me.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did see porta-potties there that last time I was there. Just peeing on the ground would be a health issue.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
I'm not even sure I understand where you're going here. Would it have been better/worse/equivalent for PZ to ask someone to go relieve themselves on ground zero? Still just sounds like someone being a benign jerk.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not while in a Catholic church. Not in a parishioner's house. Just privately, and post it on his website that people are free to look at or ignore.
None of the attributes you just listed are at all relevant to the harm Catholics think he would be doing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I get that you don't believe any of this. But I don't believe you don't understand why people who do believe this might have a serious problem with it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Which would be, to Catholics, a harm.
I get that you don't believe any of this. But I don't believe you don't understand why people who do believe this might have a serious problem with it.
Having a problem with something is different from harm.
I see how Catholics have a problem with it. I do not see how Catholics are harmed by it.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand people having a serious problem with it. I just don't understand how they are harmed. I consider harm to be something that is measurable, even in a theological sense.
For instance, if they had a sacred duty to protect the Eucharist (which I understand that they do) and they were accountable for its desecration (which I understand they would not be if they were unaware or unable to stop it), I would recognize at least a perceived harm.
But it seems like what PZ is advocating is that someone commit an act that is roughly equivalent of the "blasphemy challenge" - another stupid stunt with only one potential victim - the one who performs the stunt. And most of the complaints I've seen have expressed little concern for the eternal soul of the one who does this, rather it's all people who seem to take personal and institutional offense.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Having a problem with something is different from harm.
I see how Catholics have a problem with it. I do not see how Catholics are harmed by it.
I said Catholics think he would be doing harm. I didn't say they necessarily think he would be harming them.
Of course, he is doing harm to them, and he's intending to do it.
If someone scattered a cremated relative's ashes, and I gathered them up and made a web page of my using them as kitty litter, announcing my intention to make that person upset, I think most people would view that as my having harmed that person.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Having a problem with something is different from harm.
I see how Catholics have a problem with it. I do not see how Catholics are harmed by it.
I said Catholics think he would be doing harm. I didn't say they necessarily think he would be harming them.
Of course, he is doing harm to them, and he's intending to do it.
If someone scattered a cremated relative's ashes, and I gathered them up and made a web page of my using them as kitty litter, announcing my intention to make that person upset, I think most people would view that as my having harmed that person.
I would agree with you, if you could hand out tiny cremated relative's ashes (all the same person, mind) that cost $1 a box that people routinely eat.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would agree with you, if you could hand out tiny cremated relative's ashes (all the same person, mind) that cost $1 a box that people routinely eat.
I think I get a little piece of this. At the time of transubstantiation, people imbue the host with the same direct personal attachment that you might imbue the ashes of your relative with. Just as those ashes are both a bunch of carbon molecules AND your grandfather, they see the host as both a cracker AND Christ. The pre-transubstantiation crackers are no more sacred than is the carrot your grandfather ate the day he died.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still am not sure that I see significant harm though. Desecration of one's relative still involves the theft/abuse of a finite resource. The Catholic church can produce an effectively infinite quantity of the Eucharist. If there were a fountain that poured out a constant stream of the ashes of my grandfather to whomever wanted some, I don't think I'd be as concerned about what someone did with their personal sampling of the ashes.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would agree with you, if you could hand out tiny cremated relative's ashes (all the same person, mind) that cost $1 a box that people routinely eat.
Pretty much what Matt said. You can't buy them.
quote:I still am not sure that I see significant harm though. Desecration of one's relative still involves the theft/abuse of a finite resource. The Catholic church can produce an effectively infinite quantity of the Eucharist. If there were a fountain that poured out a constant stream of the ashes of my grandfather to whomever wanted some, I don't think I'd be as concerned about what someone did with their personal sampling of the ashes.
We're not worried about running out. In the analogy I made, the person scattering the ashes is done with his relative. I actually picked that aspect on purpose to provide that particular parallel.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: In the analogy I made, the person scattering the ashes is done with his relative. I actually picked that aspect on purpose to provide that particular parallel.
True. But the ashes were once a person, so I could understand harm caused to the relatives.
There are simple tests to determine if the Eucharist is or was a person.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are simple tests to determine if the Eucharist is or was a person.
But they believe it is Christ in a physically undetectable form.
I'm trying to understand harm from the perspective of Catholic theology, not as physically demonstrable. To me it still seems a bit like being offended that someone admits to masturbating - committing an individual sin against God, not one to which other church members are parties.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Side thought: I get most of the conversation so far. Where the train goes off the rails for me is the desecration part. I mean, presumably the cracker becomes a Chunk of Christ and then a Catholic would normally eat that. This is what, literally and metaphorically being "one" with Christ?
Now when someone steals it and tortures this Chunk of Christ, say with a butter knife, what is the belief about whats going on? Does that mean Christ is feeling pain from a rich margarine spread in a different way than he would if he was chewed up, digested, and excreted? And why doesn't he do anything directly about all these people biting on him if it hurts?
And does he actually feel pain now, being omnipotent and all after having resurrected out of human form and back into deity form?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm guessing that the essence does not suffer the indignity of digestion and excretion.
As for torturing the host, I'm not sure that this is actually a doctrinally possible endeavor. My guess is that this is answered the same way that spontaneous natural abortions are handled - God works it out.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Really? Name one that proves that transubstantiation has not taken place.
Wow. You don't know how science works.
No, you don't understand what transubstantiation is. The fact that I understand science is why I know there's no scientific test for transubstantiation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Really? Name one that proves that transubstantiation has not taken place.
Wow. You don't know how science works.
No, you don't understand what transubstantiation is. The fact that I understand science is why I know there's no scientific test for transubstantiation.
There are plenty of tests for transubstantiation if transubstantiation claims to make the cracker no longer a cracker.
If transubstantiation does not claim to do that...then it's just a cracker.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I'm guessing that the essence does not suffer the indignity of digestion and excretion.
Right, but if it is the case that the essence manages to run away before digestion, why not just run away from a stolen cracker? Why do it the slow way and have humans do something about it?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio) is the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ occurring in the Eucharist according to the teaching of some Christian Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, while all that is accessible to the senses remain as before. In Greek it is called μετουσίωσις (see Metousiosis).
"Substance" here means what something is in itself. (For more on the philosophical concept, see Substance theory.) A hat's shape is not the hat itself, nor is its colour the hat, nor is its size, nor its softness to the touch, nor anything else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself (the "substance") has the shape, the colour, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them. While the appearances, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents, are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not.
When at his Last Supper, Jesus said: "This is my body",[1] what he held in his hands still had all the appearances of bread: these "accidents" remained unchanged. However, the Roman Catholic Church believes that, when Jesus made that declaration,[2] the underlying reality (the "substance") of the bread was converted to that of his body. In other words, it actually was his body, while all the appearances open to the senses or to scientific investigation were still those of bread, exactly as before. The Church holds that the same change of the substance of the bread and of the wine occurs at the consecration of the Eucharist.[3]
Because Christ, risen from the dead, is living, the Church holds that, when the bread is changed into his body, not only his Body is present, but Christ as a whole i.e. body and blood, soul and divinity. The same holds for the wine changed into his Blood.[4] This belief goes beyond the doctrine of transubstantiation, which directly concerns only the transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.
In accordance with this belief that Christ is really, truly and substantially present under the remaining appearances of bread and wine, and continues to be present as long as those appearances remain, the Catholic Church preserves the consecrated elements, generally in a church tabernacle, for administering Holy Communion to the sick and dying, and also for the secondary, but still highly prized, purpose of adoring Christ present in the Eucharist.
Again, I get you don't believe in it. But saying scientific tests can disprove transubstantiation is like you can prove there's not an invisible person standing at the foot of your bed because you can't see it.
I've used this analogy before to help explain it:
quote:Catholics believe that the observable attributes of the bread are accident, and that the actual substance of the bread is transformed into the entire being of Christ during consecration (body, mind, and spirit).
But without all the background, this explanation makes little sense except as background knowledge.
A very loose analogy would be when Moody transformed Draco into a ferret. The ferret was entirely different physically than Draco, but was still him. This would be a case of the accident changing but the substance staying the same.
Transubstantiation during consecration is the reverse - the accident stays the same but the substance changes.
posted
"Again, I get you don't believe in it. But saying scientific tests can disprove transubstantiation is like you can prove there's not an invisible person standing at the foot of your bed because you can't see it."
What I'm saying is there are no scientific tests that prove that the Eucharist cracker is anything other than a cracker.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I'm saying is there are no scientific tests that prove that the Eucharist cracker is anything other than a cracker.
I agree with that statement. But you said something more, too: that this means the consecrated host is not anything more other than a cracker.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I demonstrated - a demonstration you seem to have utterly ignored - that the conclusion "there is no difference between a non-consecrated host and a consecrated host that can be detected by science" can be true AND transubstantiation can be true.
The former does not falsify the latter.
Edit: And this is true because the statement "there is no difference between a non-consecrated host and a consecrated host that can be detected by science" is actually PART of the belief of transubstantiation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To bring this full circle, I contend that my ash-gathering-and-kitty-littering would be harmful to the ash-scatterer even if I only (successfully) pretended to gather the ashes, and actually used the remains of last night's charcoal for my kitty litter. Edit: this is not the principle I harm I see occurring if PZM successfully gets a consecrated host. But it is the harm I think he is intentionally setting out to commit.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
