Myer’s doesn’t just do this with the religious. He does it with any broad group he has a disagreement with. Like libertarians.

1. The wafer is handed out with the intention that it be destroyed. What the student did was not destroy it according to a certain ritual. So anything about property damage is not analogous.

2. This is not making a point about a crazy extreme subsection of religious people, but is making a point about the standard belief of the religion.

3. Point 2 of course does not say that it isn’t still an asshole move, but it’s also important to remember that religion is an extremely powerful institution in the U.S. and the world. This isn’t someone picking on poor Johnny the little mentally retarded kid down the street. This is an act that highlights the bizarreness of a powerful force that has damaged the lives of many other people for centuries, and the reaction this prompted might have some people question why they hold such great influence and are considered reasonable by polite society.

The problem with the rattle analogy is that the rattle would never have been used to justify mass murder. Some symbols, no matter how beloved by certain people, need to be disrespected and the people who love them need to be offended. Simply because the history of said symbol is full of horror and blood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_desecration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitic_canard#Accusations_of_host_desecration

As a Catholic, I completely understand the non-believer’s (and I REALLY don’t mean that in a perjorative sense, I promise!) irritation with the tenet of Transubstantiation. Of COURSE it’s not “testable” and yes, I see who one can draw a parallel with the “pseudoscientific” claims of other religions and, of course, kooks, cranks and woo-mongers (i.e. “it’s not scientifically testable so it MUST be true!!”)

The big difference is that Catholic’s do not claim that its untestability PROVES it, in the way that kranks do. We simple shrug and say “it cannot be tested; indeed all tests show it to be false. And yet we continue to believe it.” We do not hold up a scientific test proving the host to be just bread, the wine to be just fermetned grape juice as if the lackof science’s ability to demonstrate anything other than their physical makeup is direct evidence of its veracity.

Catholicism is a relatively scientific belief (oddly)… it accepts evolution, the ancient universe, Big Bang theory, genetics, pretty much the entire canon of modern science. Indeed, some of the breakthroughs in these areas were MADE by Catholic priests (Mendel anyone?)

We believe what we believe, because of faith; science shows that in PHYSICAL terms the host remains unchanged, but that is what Catholic theologians have already said for several centuries now.

And FWIW… I think the Catholics calling for physical harm against Meyers, and the threats against Mr. Cooke are reprehensible; that is NOT what our faith is, or should ever be about.

PZ Myers is an idiot. He may or may not be a good scientist; I don’t know. But his philosophy is silly & absurd.

His campaign for atheism is not motivated by any kind of rational bried that can be made for atheism. This silly little affair just illustrates how much his crusade owes to malice & bile.

No you aren’t. Your “enormously detailed” explanation of why you think transubstantiation is false consisted of a passing reference to parapsychology. Transubstantiation has nothing to do with parapsychology. It also has nothing to do, according to Catholics, with the laws of physics. As one poster mentioned the law of physics deal with the accidents of the wafer, not the substance. So the theory of transubstantiation makes no predictions that can be tested in a physics experiment.

BTW, I don’t blame the moderators for removing my post where I quoted (even with asterisks) some of the language from another thread on Pharyngula where PZ asked for contributions of insults about creationist crank Ken Ham. Likely it wasn’t a good idea to put up. I was bitter about the original, but I realize and need to remember there’s no need to be so graphic. But that just goes to show how vulgar that thread was. Inviting ridicule etc. of traditionalists is not the way to go, and reinforces an image of arrogant modernist vulgarians. Like I asked before, what would Bertrand Russell do, or maybe even Plato?

(And, given a third comment in a short time and several elsewhere, this is just replacement for that and I’ll let it all go for awhile.)

Webster Cook was impeached from his student government position last week. An official investigation by the Legislative, Judicial and Rules Committee is underway.

you’ve made a second post before I hit the submit reply button. I think I understand what you were talking about in the first half of your previous post a bit better now. I’m glad you approve of South Park, although I don’t watch that show myself.

I think keeping a low profile for a while is a good idea. You wouldn’t want to waste band-width, or anything.

I’m afraid I have no idea what you’re talking about in the first half of your post.

As for the second half, well OF COURSE I understood that by “band-width”, you meant the support UMM gives in esteem, the reputation, etc. In fact, that is also what I meant by “band-width” in my own post. What made you think otherwise? I mean, it’s perfectly obvious, isn’t it?

Oh and, UMM isn’t “spending band-width” on Pharyngula.

Your presumption that evolution produces “positive or neutral survival value” is only partially true at best (even organisms that are profoundly diseased or fatally damaged can and DO “exist” – alive – for a time, you know, and these unfortunate beings are products of said evolution every bit as much as successful or healthy individuals are), but the implication that the all resulting CONFIGURATIONS are necessarily the best possible ones is completely untrue.

I have no doubts that religion is an artifact of cultural evolution. That certainly doesn’t mean that religion ought to be uniformly regarded as a positive or neutral cultural configuration, especially since anyone can plainly see that what religion so effectively cultivates – superstitious thinking – has not been shown to have any survival value other than as a rallying point around which some measure of social coherence amongst like-minded advocates is achieved. However, we all know that many other rationality-based belief systems offer precisely that very same particular survival value in terms of social cohesion.

It ALSO confers a survival value in those who make a strong effort to continuously improve their world views in order to better reflect the real world outside of our heads. These people realize that viability is dictated by natural laws independent of what their conceptual models – they’re dictated by a reality that exists “outside” of their minds, not some superstitious figment residing inside their minds. So, comparitively, just what is so “positive or neutral” about the chronic denial of evidence which superstition promotes?

At any rate, just because you think “everything that exists due to evolution has positive or neutral survival value”, isn’t a reason to draw any conclusion that we should all give up on trying to shape and improve our societies and destinies by letting some mindless thing we call evolution call the shots. I trust you would not think that, would you?

By “genius”, I was simply using the word in it’s broadest meaning, referring generally to a comparitively high standard of excellence, and referring to PZ’s exceptional ability as a writer and, yes, as a teacher. One CAN be a genius in those areas and many others, can’t they? I appreciate your veneration of the word, but all the “geniuses” I know don’t place that much importance in it as a label of personal distinction. It’s just a WORD, one that describes relative distinction, not a physical attribute.

As for your sentiment that “his railing against religion has all the slickness and shallowness of the snakeoil salesman at the county fair” and that “his explanations of why people are religious never go beyond pop psychology”: I certainly respect your opinion, however faulty I think it is. That’s my opinion. You are entitled to your own, but I find it amazing that you should go to such pains to characterize what is, after all, the personal observations of a bloke in the informal atmosphere of a BLOG!

Have you actually READ what PZ writes? It’s MY opinion that it is an exemplar of rational discourse (on a touchy subject, to be sure) presented in highly digestible colloquial terms, so that almost everyone can understand what he’s talking about. HE knows it’s inappropriate to use excessively technical jargon which is popularly perceived to be how the ‘scientific elite’ impress each other. He posts VERY frequently on examples of consummate silliness, because there is an enormous amount of silliness out there. How can anyone blame him for the foolishness of others? MAJOR foolishness that affects us ALL adversely. He’s a clearing house of the absurd, and he gets criticized for pointing out the most ghastly examples? Surely you can reserve your carny “snakeoil salesman” for the vastly more appropriate target, such as the incessantly barking evangelical fundamentalists who behave as if ignorance is a virtue.

Nick: thanks for the support! Much appreciated.

Religious superstition is a disaster against the welfare of humanity and civilization. How do you suppose any sceptic who loves their species or culture or nation could possibly enjoy the thankless task of trying to help free so many fellow beings from the tyranny of institutionalized superstition?

My, doesn’t self-righteousness feel good?

Religious superstition is a disaster against the welfare of humanity and civilization. How do you suppose any sceptic who loves their species or culture or nation could possibly enjoy the thankless task of trying to help free so many fellow beings from the tyranny of institutionalized superstition?

Presumably everything that exists due to evolution has positive or neutral survival value; and that would include religion. If you want to give an argument that religion is an evolutionary deadend do so before you say that skepticism is driven from love of species.

Good reason, too – the man is a genuinely honest fellow, as well as a genius.

The man is a great teacher of biology. Beyond that I fail to see genius. His railing against religion has all the slickness and shallowness of the snakeoil salesman at the county fair. His explanations of why people are religious never go beyond pop psychology. As he is a honest fellow, he will probably agree with this.