…and this is a 
Easter mourning
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: April 16, 2006 9:33 AM, by PZ Myers
People all around the world are celebrating Easter today. I am not. Easter is a vile little holiday wrapped up in a façade of pretty dresses and chocolate eggs and happy children playing games on the lawn, but at its putrescent core lies 20 centuries of exploitation and dishonesty. Here is a hard-core atheist's perspective on this awful holy day.
I. The fact.
This is the season when our culture commemorates torture. A particularly callous sort of torture, too: a lazy and evil form of punishment that could be carried out en masse. Nail people up in intolerable postures and they inevitably and slowly die, no active, trained labor required—nail 'em and leave 'em, confident that they'll suffer horribly and eventually expire.
We focus all our attention on one man who suffered this torment, and regard him as somehow special. The Roman Empire did this to tens of thousands at once, in mass spectacles of hideous punishment. Throughout human history, people have died ghastly, lingering deaths, often at the hands of other people, and it was not ennobling, and it is usually forgotten.
Look at that bloody figure wracked up on a cross, and we should all be reminded not of one man long ago who suffered, but that our nation tortures to the death other brown-skinned Middle Eastern people right now. How can we look at the Passion spectacles now and not feel a deep shame?
II. The lie.
At the heart of Christian belief is a lie: that this man was tortured to death long ago, and that afterwards he came back to life. Oh, and also that he wasn't a man at all, but a god. There is no evidence for these claims that defy all reason and experience, but we're asked merely to believe. To have faith. To trust the words of priests.
I refuse.
If a sacrifice is the centerpiece of our salvation, it makes no sense to call the brief troubling of an omnipotent being with a few nails a "sacrifice." It was a man who died horribly, like many others. He didn't come back.
Grieve. For he is not risen.
III. The false promise.
Christianity has taken the lie and amplified it millions-fold. If one man came back from the dead, why not everyone? It's the wet dream of every snake-oil salesman, the ultimate con: an irresistible promise, made with no evidence whatsoever, with a payoff deferred to another world, another time…and the suckers line up in droves to pay up.
"You don't have to die," the priests wheedle, "you can live forever."
How many millions have fallen for that tempting lie? How many have died? All of them. How many have seen the promise fulfilled? None of them.
The death cult flourishes in its denial of reality. The fleecing continues.
IV. The threat.
The promise of eternal life is not enough. We must also be browbeaten with threats of unearthly, unending torment if we don't believe the lie.
It's a culture that rewards the most extravagant of extortionists.
V. The hierarchy.
Millions of good, decent people will accept the promise and fear the threat; wishful thinking is no crime. They will make weekly, sometimes daily visits to their local cult office, they will freely donate money in trust to their local priest. Those who can't visit, will write checks, even if their income is limited, and will send them off to the smiling pompadours on their television sets.
It's a perfect system in which nice people make themselves exploitable, and those who are most deluded, most venal, most vehement in their pronunciation of the Big Lie are rewarded the most. The rot rises rapidly to the top.
Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, Haggard, Bakker, Roberts…how many can you name? This is a system where the worst represent all, the takers and liars and vermin reap the rewards, and the best labor and give, give, give, give.
VI. The theft.
I know how the believers will reply. They will say "Bach!" They will point to the Sistine Chapel. They will talk about human hope and beauty and art, and the patronage of the church.
And I will say that no gods had a hand in any of that. Those are human accomplishments, the work of the skilled and clever and good, with no divinity necessary. On top of the false promise and the threat, the religious add the crime of theft: they falsely appropriate our best works and shackle them in service to the lie.
And so it goes.
What to do.
Abandon the church. Take the money you were going to throw in the collection plate and donate it to a secular charity. Tell your priest to take a hike. Stay home; have a quiet day with your family. Think. Enjoy this world while you live in it.
This holiday has a longer tradition than the Christian church, and is associated with the return of Spring. So celebrate life. Go for a walk. Plant a tree. Read a good book. Have a conversation with someone. Write a poem, paint a picture.
The lesson you should learn is that torture doesn't dissipate with a deity's whim. Write your representative. March for peace. Write an angry blog entry. Yell at a Republican.
Whatever you do, wake up. Deny the lie.
Comments
About the torture and death: I have been known to ask whether Christians would wear a guillotine, syringe, rope, electric chair, iron maiden, ... if those had been the supposed instruments of death of the Jesus guy ...
Posted by: Keith Douglas | April 16, 2006 9:46 AM
Well said, PZ.
How'd they reply, Keith?
Posted by: BronzeDog | April 16, 2006 9:54 AM
I went to church this morning to please the relatives. This is the last time.
The minister stood up there, fat and red-faced, repeating, again and again, the claims we all know, as if he could make them true. He said god gave meaning to our lives, which wouldn't be true even if he did exist. And he seemed contemptible.
Then he talked about his father, who died last Monday. Again, the repetition, punctuated with these calls to bolster himself - "I believe!". And then I pitied him, a sad charletan, trying to draw on his parisioners belief to assuage his own despair.
Posted by: chuko | April 16, 2006 9:58 AM
Excuse the Scooter Libbyish prose; too many modern translation bible readings this morning...
Posted by: chuko | April 16, 2006 10:00 AM
Bah. I get my buzz from a dark English ale, others get theirs from religion. As PZ pointed out recently, there are assholes on both sides, and good people on both sides. Just as I don't condemn people for having a few glasses of wine so long as they don't drive, I won't comdemn people from celebrating a feel-good fairy tale so long as they don't bother or endanger me. Chances are, if the religious assholes and con-men lost their faith, they would be secular assholes and con-men.
Posted by: Shygetz | April 16, 2006 10:08 AM
Each and every point you made once again showed your ignorance and your hate. Don't you ever get tired of it?
Posted by: JMcH | April 16, 2006 10:14 AM
Someone is certainly showing his ignorance and hate. Why don't you find somewhere else to troll?
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | April 16, 2006 10:17 AM
I'm more disturbed by religious people I like and respect. Religion twists them, making them unreasoning and limited, in a direct relationship with the strength of their "faith". Religion is just as destructive to its followers as to anyone else.
Posted by: chuko | April 16, 2006 10:25 AM
Ok, I'll celebrate Easter by ripping the Answers in Genesis post for today: (http://www.answersingenesis.org/):
"Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them"
--Strange that God never heard of cotton, since he supposedly he created the cotton plant.
"without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness "
--So... if I said something bad about Ken Ham behind his back, he couldn't forgive me without exacting a pound of flesh from me? Or just a pinprick? Sounds "klingon" to me.
"God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, who washed us from our sins in His own blood."
--What's with this "blood" fixation? Slasher movies or something? Vampires? Even drinking God's blood at communion.
"Remember Jesus Christ, who raised from the dead, descended from David, Abraham and Adam"
--God favors a certain race? Is he a racist?
"who is now seated at God's right hand in the heavenly realms"
--That's all he does there? Sit at the right hand of some powerful dude and act important? Sounds boring.
Posted by: GW | April 16, 2006 10:27 AM
May God bless you and demonstrate his love for you, P.Z. Meyers.
Posted by: Sanctum | April 16, 2006 10:28 AM
HEY! HEY, YOU! WHY AREN'T YOU IN CHURCH RIGHT NOW?
GET ON YOUR KNEES, BUSTER, OR ROT IN HELL...AND QUIT READING HEATHENISH WEBLOGS ON THE DAY YOUR LORD AND MASTER JESUS CHRIST ROSE FROM THE DEAD!
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 16, 2006 10:28 AM
Hallelujah! He's living today!
And His song's in my heart as I pray...
He Lives!
;-)
Posted by: Virge | April 16, 2006 10:29 AM
When someone mentions Bach and the Sistine Chapel, the best response, I think, is to counter with the observation that Christians have been very intolerant of non-Christian art, writing, and science. Christians destroyed many works of art, and many libraries, just because they depicted Pagan gods. Today Christian fundamentalists bemoan secular art and secular music, ostensibly for esthetic reasons, but in reality for ideological ones. Like sex, art has to serve an ideological purpose for the fanatic to consider it anything but horribly sinful.
Posted by: Alon Levy | April 16, 2006 10:30 AM
I don't know, I always thought of Easter as the holiday the Romans stole from the European pagans they conquered.
Posted by: plucky punk | April 16, 2006 10:30 AM
Stop trying to reason with religionists; instead, humour them, by pointing out the logical implications of their beliefs.
For instance, assuming God does exist, then we were created as his playthings, and must worship him so he won't torture us for an infinite period of time (see how God is love!).
If we please him, he may allow us to float around with him, doing nothing in particular, for an infinite period of time (and gloating over those less fortunate who are roasting down 'below'). How thrilling.
Now, it's not quite clear how exactly we ensure we please him, for there are many different opinions amongst the experts on the subject. You just have to hope you have 'chosen' the right sect.
Further, to make it more of a challenge, God has created us with many character flaws and forbidden appetities, which we must also negotiate successfully - there's a whole lifetime to get through, so don't let your guard down even for a moment.
Interestingly, although the Son has not returned these last 2,000 years, His rules have been continously modified over the centuries, so what was once evil is now good, and vice versa. So do not make the mistake of thinking that God's Law is eternal and unchanging; he is constantly trying to catch you out!
Again, you must hope that the experts you listen to are correct, or you're completely screwed.
Good luck!
Posted by: Ian B Gibson | April 16, 2006 10:30 AM
Vanessa: Easter is the holiday Christians stole from Jews and Pagans - just like all other major Christian holidays.
Posted by: Alon Levy | April 16, 2006 10:32 AM
I have never understood why I should be made to suffer for the poor judgment of two people, thousands of years ago, in which I had absolutely no hand. Accepting this act as the explanation for one's own present-day troubles is such a lapse of thought, such a total failure of cognition, that I am not surprised that people who swallow it whole also believe that the suffering of another man, likewise thousands of years dead, can somehow cleanse me of the stain an "all merciful" being placed on my account.
I spent the afternoon climbing over the Roman amphitheater here in Lyon, where Christians were once sacrificed for the economic welfare of the state and national security. Funny how times change, isn't it, and how when the people on the bottom get to be on top, they never remember how their old oppressors behaved?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 16, 2006 10:33 AM
By the way:
"Christianity is stupid! Communism is good! GIVE UP!"
It's true.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 16, 2006 10:37 AM
PZ just hasn't found the right shrine for his non-worship. Foe Easter, might is suggest this?
http://www.peepsshow.com/gallery/copia/copia-f.html
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | April 16, 2006 10:39 AM
I like to celebrate Easter with a crate of Cadbury Creme eggs and a stack of Zombie movies.
Posted by: JP | April 16, 2006 10:40 AM
JMch,
Although I do have some nitpicks for some of the claims made by PZ above (no, I'm not Christian in any sense of the word), I do have to agree whole-heartedly with point number II. What's the point of the "sacrifice for man's/humanity's sins" if Jesus came back to life shortly afterwards anyway? What, did he get a refund? (!! That would actually explain a lot of stuff.)
And why didn't he stick around to further spread his soul-saving teachings himself? Where did he actually go after the resurrection? What about his second this-worldly death? Or is he still walking around in the flesh some place even to this day?
Basically, why bother with resurrecting yourself if you are [A] not going to do anything further in the living world anyway, and/or [B] you are (or are a part of) God, who (from what I can tell) is the being us mortals may meet in person only once we die? No need to come back to life to be with (or merge back with) God, is there?
Posted by: Monimonika | April 16, 2006 10:41 AM
My folks are down for the weekend visiting me and my wife. Today, we're watching movies, taking pleasent walks and tonight, we're having a nice dinner with friends. Ostensibly, we're doing this to celebrate Spring; an excuse to eat good food with friends and family for no other reason then that it's warm again, and the flowers are blooming.
Also, I found out that my parents have stopped going to church. It's never too late to learn the truth.
Posted by: Keith | April 16, 2006 10:42 AM
I don't get why Jesus is so esteemed. He had everything going for him. Eternal bliss? Becoming the saviour of mankind, to be worshipped by all? That's hardly a sacrifice. In fact, sign me up. A few hours hanging from a cross is nothing compared to the reward.
Posted by: Dylan Llyr | April 16, 2006 10:45 AM
Ah, Easter... the day when the Easter Bunny checks his list to see who's naughty or nice. The nice ones end up with Cadbury creme eggs, the naughty ones end up with nasty (albeit brightly colored) hard-boiled eggs.
BTW, crucifixion is bad and all, but it's got nothing on impalement.
Posted by: MJ Memphis | April 16, 2006 10:46 AM
Well, I have nothing against Easter Monday, when all the excess candy goes on sale.
Posted by: wamba | April 16, 2006 10:53 AM
Wamba wrote:
Yes! It's just like the day after Valentine's, all over again!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 16, 2006 10:54 AM
Here's an interesting little item:
Norwegians relish annual Easter crime wave
Easter = crime.
Posted by: wamba | April 16, 2006 10:54 AM
Easter is really the same holiday as Halloween - a celebration of C12H22O11. The only difference in the holidays is the color scheme. Easter relies on pastels while Halloween relies on blacks, purples, and oranges.
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | April 16, 2006 10:57 AM
awww, PZ, I'm disappointed. There's nothing wrong with celebrating Easter.
In fact, I'm enjoying some chocolate pagan fertility symbols with my coffee right now. What's all this stuff about nailiing somebody to a tree have to do with Easter, anyway?
Posted by: Bored Huge Krill | April 16, 2006 11:03 AM
I do prefer fertility rites to warding off evil spirits. Most days.
Posted by: chuko | April 16, 2006 11:04 AM
It's a culture that rewards the most extravagant of extortionists.
As many have pointed out, it's also an excellent culture for slavery. Once you've convinced people that their various sufferings really do earn them brownie points in Heaven, they'll put up with anything.
That said, don't knock the chocolate eggs. Pious or secular, they're reliably the truest, finest, most consistantly enjoyable aspect of the holiday. Unless you're into millinery.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | April 16, 2006 11:06 AM
Imagine all the intricate musical counterpoint we might have been blessed with if Bach had been inspired by the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | April 16, 2006 11:06 AM
PZ:
GET ON YOUR KNEES, BUSTER, OR ROT IN HELL...AND QUIT READING HEATHENISH WEBLOGS ON THE DAY YOUR LORD AND MASTER JESUS CHRIST ROSE FROM THE DEAD!
Please pardon me while I recalibrate my sarcasmometer.
Reminds me of something:
After an MTV showing of "Amish Paradise"
Weird Al Yankovic: "There's something I'd like to say to any Amish people who happened to watch that... GET BACK TO WORK! You're not suppose to be watching TV!"
Posted by: BronzeDog | April 16, 2006 11:14 AM
I always hated Easter, even when I was a good Sunday School gal. But, since I didn't head down to the atheist convention in Kansas, I'm spending today with the family. I want to send the message that, while I'm not a believer, I'm also not my aunt--the Jehovah's Witness who won't celebrate "heathen" Easter, Christmas, Halloween, birthdays, etc. (I love heathen Halloween best and always did.)
Posted by: Kristine | April 16, 2006 11:18 AM
Serious question, PZ: are you a theologian?
Posted by: JMcH | April 16, 2006 11:21 AM
Check out this piece in the OBserver:
Science does not challenge my faith - it strengthens it
Richard Harries criticzes atheists on four points. The piece itself is drivel, but the response comments are of very high quality.
Posted by: wamba | April 16, 2006 11:24 AM
Dr. Meyers,
I have been reading your blog admiringly for some time now. As an athetist, I whole heartly agree with comments on the Easter holiday. One small aspect of this holiday has been the subject of some scientific experimentation that I thought I should bring to your attention.
http://www.peepresearch.org/.
Enjoy,
Doug Kilgore BSME
Posted by: Doug Kilgore | April 16, 2006 11:25 AM
Serious question, PZ: are you a theologian?
Naw. Sez right up there at the top of the page he's a biology teacher. Pay attention, son.
Posted by: Matt T. | April 16, 2006 11:27 AM
While some parts of the message of Christianity make emotional sense, I find that other parts baffle me.
Reject Jesus, and suffer eternal torment, or accept Jesus, and bask in pleasure forever: ok, I get it, a stick and a carrot.
However, the idea that Jesus "died for my sins", or died for the sinfulness that I inherit from Adam and Eve, makes no sense emotionally. God made His Son suffer considerable discomfort for awhile, so that what? So that there was a blood sacrifice, analogous to sacrificing a goat? By God, to God? Why would an all-knowing, all-powerful deity care about such a thing? And if I accept Jesus as my Personal Savior, God forgives me my sins. Why? What has this acceptance got to do with the cruxifiction?
Although it's obvious why people would go along with the carrot-and-stick part, it's impressive that so many have accepted the "God's sacrifice to God" part, or the "Accepting Jesus will make God like you" part, which just make no sense that I can see.
Posted by: Ken C. | April 16, 2006 11:27 AM
PZ Meyers,
Was your yelling comment meant for me?
If so, I don't attend church and I don't pray on my knees.
I presume this was meant as a satirical representation of what Christians have been heard to say, but I have never had a man (or woman) of God speak this way to me.
Take care.
Posted by: Sanctum | April 16, 2006 11:27 AM
I realized something at church today, sitting through the Easter sermon - the thing that really gets them all is the love part. Come to church, we'll love you. Come and do this, and God will love you. Love, love, love. At least at the church I was at, that is. It's powerfully enticing to people who are lonely and marginalized, and for the others, it's a call to become a better person just by loving all those outcasts. Love makes you do stupid things, including suspending all powers of reason. I think that no matter how reasonable atheists are, no matter how logical, no matter how right, that fuzzy schmoopy love thing will make religion win out for most people. How do we combat that?
Posted by: Carlie | April 16, 2006 11:30 AM
In addition to the points you make, it should also be noted that for Christians to be saved Jesus had to die as the sacrifice for their sins. Christians couldn't very well kill him themselves - how quickly would you wind up in hell for killing God/the Son of God? You couldn't blame it on the Romans - how quickly would your nascent sect be brutally suppressed by the Romans if it taught that they had killed your God? But, it was emminently convenient to blame it on the Jews - and note how quickly Jew-hatred became an entrenched part of Christianity, resulting in persecution, pograms, and ultimately - well, you know what I'm talking about.
Posted by: T.R. | April 16, 2006 11:44 AM
Naw. Sez right up there at the top of the page he's a biology teacher. Pay attention, son.
Well, I was hoping for an answer from the man himself, but this will do, I guess.
So, PZ is not a theologian. Neither is PZ a physicist. Yet between theology and physics, which one does he imagine himself eminently qualified to pontificate upon at length? Here's a hint:
A creationist pest
Pay particular attention to PZ's answer to #2.
Posted by: JMcH | April 16, 2006 11:47 AM
For the love of God, think of the Cadbury Eggs and Peeps! If you scrap Easter you lose chocolate filled with goo and funky marshmallows.
Posted by: RPM![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 16, 2006 11:48 AM
"but, it was emminently convenient to blame it on the Jews"
I don't blame the death of jesus on the jews. I blame the jews for creating their stupid, cruel religion in the first place, which ultimately spawned jesus, and another stupid cruel religion.
Posted by: GW | April 16, 2006 11:59 AM
JMcH,
Are you implying that only a actual theologian, as in a professional and scholarly, is qualified to comment on religion? Seriously? 'Cause I know a whole lot of preachers who'd disagree with you on that. And as for that particular question, I read all that as the person asking Prof. Myers the question (concerning the big bang) as a professional scientist. The Big Bang is out of Prof. Myers' scholarly field - which, as we've discussed is biology - so it's perfectly logical he decline to answer it.
I don't think anyone with any real sense would mistake the professor's rantings concerning religion as serious, scholarly work. It's merely a human being excersizing his right to speak his mind on his blog (which is what these things are for). If Prof. Myers considers himself considers the above post a "serious, scholarly work", with all due respect, he needs to settle down. If it's a post about squid or DNA, well, that's a different kettle of fish. Otherwise, who are you to tell him he can't express his complete loathing for all things religious when the urge strikes him?
Tell me. Are you a theologian? A preacher? Deacon? Any sort of official religious figure? In other words, what makes your words more worthy of consideration?
Posted by: Matt T. | April 16, 2006 12:00 PM
Peeps at least can be found at many more holidays. In addition to Easter Peeps, there are Valentine's Peeps, Halloween Peeps, and Christmas Peeps. (Any others?)
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | April 16, 2006 12:01 PM
Well, I'm hoping to celebrate the return of spring with a traditional fertility ritual, if we can ever get the kid to sleep after all the chocolate eggs. I'm not sure what all this about crosses is, but it sounds like a rather unpleasant accretion and I'm just going to pretend I never heard of it.
Posted by: Dianne | April 16, 2006 12:05 PM
Are you implying that only a actual theologian, as in a professional and scholarly, is qualified to comment on religion?
No, actually, I'm not. I'm showing PZ's hypocritical inconsistancy. On the one hand, he refuses to answer a question about physics because he's not a physicist. Yet on the other, he feverishly types out these grandiose denouncements of religion despite the fact that he's not a theologian. Furthermore, he condemns Christians who comment on evolution because they are not biologists.
Posted by: JMcH | April 16, 2006 12:18 PM
Posted by: wamba | April 16, 2006 12:28 PM
JMcH,
I'd say there was a rather large gap between:
1) somebody declining to answer a question because they don't feel qualified, and
2) demanding that somebody else shut up because you don't consider them qualified.
People often to the first because they are concerned they might make an idiot out of themselves. In the second case, of couse, all the requester has to do is point out where said unqualified person made obvious errors. So how about it? Why don't you point out where the obvious errors are?
I have no problem with anybody pointing out that somebody else is unqualified - but in that case it is also incumbent on them to describe precisely where they went wrong.
Posted by: Bored Huge Krill | April 16, 2006 12:33 PM
I'm showing PZ's hypocritical inconsistancy.
No, you're not. You're showing your difficulty with reading comprehension.
On the one hand, he refuses to answer a question about physics because he's not a physicist.
As pointed out previously, the questions in the email were of a scientific nature, speaking to Prof. Myers as a scientist. He could have, of course, answered the question (though doubtful to either the questioner's or your happiness, since it was a bullshit question in the first place). He addressed the email as a biologist. Physics questions should go to physicists. Simple as that.
Yet on the other, he feverishly types out these grandiose denouncements of religion despite the fact that he's not a theologian.
Yeah, so? Again, are you saying that only theologians should criticize religion? He's not speaking as a scholar, but as a private citizen. Who are you to tell him to clam up? Where do you get that right?
Furthermore, he condemns Christians who comment on evolution because they are not biologists.
Well, he's a biologist. His job is to know biology. From what I've read, most of his criticisms of Christians who comment on evolution are because the Christians in question have no friggin' clue what they're talking about - either because of ignorance or, more likely, flat-out lying about the subject at hand - yet speak from a position of authority. Prof. Myers' criticisms of religion - apart from where it intersects with his field, i.e. Christians commenting on evolution - are those of a private citizen. He is not a theologian and by his own account has absolutely no respect for any form of religion. From what I can tell, anyway, his rants are going mostly on gut. If this is you're idea of a serious theological discusion, son, you really need to read more, 'cause I'm beginning to think you have no idea what the word even means. In any event, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever you or I or anyone on the planet should pay any attention to what Prof. Myers has to say about religion.
Biology is different, as I'm lead to understand he's studied on it some. But again, I ask you? Why should your words be given any weight at all? Or, to put it another way, why should anyone think you're anything but a rather distasteful, hate-filled little man? If what the professor says about religion pisses you off, feel free to not visit the site. I don't go to LGF because the rampant racism makes my stomach turn.
You can do that, you know. He's just a guy, calm down.
Posted by: Matt T. | April 16, 2006 12:34 PM
by the way, did I miss this somewhere? I've seen PZ arguing with Christians/anybody else on the subject of evolution because they're wrong many times. I can't say I've seen the "you're not a biologist, therefore you can't talk about evolution" argument anywhere.
Posted by: Bored Huge Krill | April 16, 2006 12:38 PM
Oh, come on, PZ. It's time to eat lots of chocolate and celebrate the festival of estrus with all manner of fun fertility rituals. It's Easter. Who said anything about dead guys?
Posted by: idlemind | April 16, 2006 12:41 PM
Isn't it amazing how many ways trolls can find to provoke endless argument and waste our time? Unfortunately, they overlook one little, fatal flaw in their diabolical plot: my time is worthless! Moo hoo ha ha!
It stands to reason, doesn't it, that biologists can only talk about biology, astronomers can only talk about astronomy, and theologians can only talk about theology. Conversely, it seems only reasonable that a topic like, say, theology can only be discussed by legitimate theologists credentialed by a duly constituted authority. Yes? Then we can only conclude that Internet trolls must only speak about trolling, and moreover no trolling may be done by persons other than certified trollologists.
The same logic holds for all human actions: only authorities on prayer are allowed to pray, only expert agapologists are able to offer charity, and so forth.
Fortunately, I myself have indeed been paid to write about science, so my comments here and elsewhere in the blogosphere are wholly legitimate.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 16, 2006 12:46 PM
Besides, PZ's not commenting on theology per se - he's commenting on the fact that it's a subject without an object.
Posted by: chuko | April 16, 2006 12:46 PM
Amen, PZ.
Posted by: scott pilutik | April 16, 2006 1:07 PM
Lol, the comments are gold! :)
And the posting is good too of course.
Posted by: Daldianus | April 16, 2006 1:09 PM
JMcH
Do you ever use evidence in any of your arguments? Or is slander the only weapon you have?
Posted by: RickD | April 16, 2006 1:11 PM
...
...
(Forgive me, all of you, this will be long.)
Very well written, PZ. Well worth the read.
The best part is the call to action.
I don't expect any of us to start a war, but I do expect thoughtful, reasonable people to defend themselves, and the mode of thought which is the wellspring of all the good things about their way of life. I expect them to recognize that the thoughtful, reasonable way of life - which is not all that old, and not all that widespread - is under siege right now (as it always has been) by con-men of the Falwellian bent, and the fools who slavishly follow them.
I don't know where I heard the saying "It has the advantage of never having been tried," but I often think, for all too many people, that the saying certainly applies to reason.
Most of us don't realize that calm, rational, non-superstitious thought is damned rare in human history, and even in modern society. It's not only recent historically, it's statistically unlikely even in the world today.
Considering its demonstrated success, you'd think people would jump at the chance to learn and practice reason. Reason is as rare as diamonds, and even more valuable, yet people treat it like common dirt - they can't wait to get clean of it so they can get back to their greasy personal fantasies and two-a-penny wishful thinking.
I think what most keeps people from trying reason is just that it's difficult to do. It takes effort.
Our brains are still too primitive, still too wired for ... well, a lot of beastly other things. War and superstition come to mind, but willing submission to the demands of a dominant other is probably every bit as damaging as either of those. We might lack the desire or twisted creativity to come up with superstitious or irrational ideas on our own, but if we eagerly submit to demagogues who supply happy fantasies, controlling superstitions, complacent just-so stories, the end result is the same: stupid self-imposed limits, blind blundering, destructive beliefs, murderous impulses.
If you were to make up posters of the utmostly opposite results of the two different modes of thought, you wouldn't have to search old history books or musty museums for pictorial representations. You wouldn't have to sift through old-timey lithographs, or pyramid paintings, or distant rock art. Oh, no. From all of human history, of the best examples of the unimaginably wonderful and the inconceivably horrific, you'd find actual PHOTOGRAPHS. In the span of a single lifetime, we have footprints on the moon, computers, genetic and nano-engineering, compassion for nature and ecological concern for the one poster, and Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Jim Jones and Heaven's Gate for the other.
In two different senses, neither of these two very different paths are inevitable.
Reason and science (and compassion) are not-inevitable because they take huge amounts of effort to do. Supremely desirable as they are, accomplishing them is difficult and unlikely. Anyone who has attempted to be a reasonable person knows it's a day-to-day uphill battle. The enemies of calm rationality form a continuum that stretches from our own family members, most times, to distant, powerful strangers in the houses of power (the White House, for instance). Almost every social interaction is colored by unreason.
Murder and genocide and mindless superstition are likewise not-inevitable. We're not doomed forever to be shackled to them ... but ONLY if we make the daily effort to take that other path. If, as we have throughout almost all of our history and prehistory, we fail to put forth the effort to develop compassion, reason and science, we'll doom ourselves to painful lives and early deaths. (At this point in history, we'll also kill off a big part of the natural world.)
In the most profound sense, we're in a war. It's diffuse, and hard to see, but it's happening (it's always been happening), and it's deadly.
Every science teacher is at war with ignorance.
Every non-religious person is the mortal foe of people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
Every honest, reasonable, compassionate individual is the hated enemy of people like Adolph Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot ... but also of people like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and even dimwitted George W. Bush.
And - no kidding - those people want us controlled, and silent, and confused - or dead.
THIS is the Long War. A war the brainless, angry, hateful, frightened, gullible, superstitious, intolerant, voracious ones automatically, inevitably win ...
UNLESS thoughtful, compassionate, reasonable, science-minded, non-superstitious people fight the good fight against them.
Every day.
...
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | April 16, 2006 1:20 PM
I am not a certified Ghostbuster, and yet I do not believe in ghosts.
Posted by: bmurray | April 16, 2006 1:31 PM
Forget Christianitity.
I think Eostre is quite a sweet holiday, being all about fertility, a fundamental element of biology.
The "rebirth" of plants in the spring, which appeared to have been dead, is of course the center of the holiday. Rabbits ("breed like rabbits") and eggs (embryos) are natural symbols of this fertility celebration.
(The "resurrection" of Jesus is obviously an attempt to cash in on the "resurrection" of the plants in the Spring. The religion of Osiris was more honest about it: Osiris's resurrection is explicitly a representation of the sudden increase of visible plant life to the surface of the earth, and Osiris is primarily a god of agriculture.)
Remember the real reason for the season. :-) Have sex.
Posted by: Nathanael Nerode | April 16, 2006 1:37 PM
JMcH writes, "No, actually, I'm not. I'm showing PZ's hypocritical inconsistancy. On the one hand, he refuses to answer a question about physics because he's not a physicist. Yet on the other, he feverishly types out these grandiose denouncements of religion despite the fact that he's not a theologian."
Physics has a real subject matter, and because of that, the data and theories and expertise that physicists develop have real-world implications that non-physicists can verify. For example, by flying an airplane to a distant city, which airplane's working and navigation is applied physics.
In contrast, all the evidence is that religion is the creation of believers, and all the theologians in the world have failed to demonstrate otherwise. Some of them demonstrate expertise in history or langauges or other topics. But on their core topic, they have never been able to demonstrate that there is a subject matter in which someone could be expert. Until they can do that, there is no reason to think them experts, rather than simply ideologues.
Posted by: Russell | April 16, 2006 1:39 PM
And besides, PZ isn't saying that Christianity (and all religion) is stupid from a theological standpoint. He's arguing from a purely logical standpoint, and that doesn't require any special training. Neither theology nor scientific training are required -- anyone can see the obvious illogic of letting people boss you around on the basis of fairy tales and superstitions thousands of years old. At least anybody can who has had the scales fall from her eyes, to coin a phrase. The Big Bang question, however, DOES require special knowledge to answer, and PZ is quite right not to pretend he has the theoretical and educational training it would take. The two issues are fundamentally different and requre different skills and knowledge to address.
Posted by: Houdini's Ghost | April 16, 2006 1:48 PM
JMcH,
Sigh. PZM's not a theologian. If you like, I can function as one. First of all, I'm a minister! Second of all, I was raised Fundy. Went to church 3 times a week for 17 years. Third, I'm a medievalist. One of the things I do is intellectual history. If you're doing medieval intellectual history, you have to do the history of Xian doctrine. So I know a fair amount about it. Finally, I've been an atheist since I was 16.
So I guess I can qualify as someone who's as close to an expert on Xian theology as this thread can have. And I think PZ, Houdini's Ghost, etc. are right on. All that makes Xian theology interesting is watching the wasted effort of the greatest (male) minds of 1,000 years contort themselves to make sense of faulty premises and the impossibility of explaining the co-existence of an omnipotent benignant deity and death.
Posted by: Karl the Grouchy Medievalist | April 16, 2006 2:06 PM
"I don't know where I heard the saying "It has the advantage of never having been tried,"..."
Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan, when they're hanging out in Genesis Phase 2 and Kirk explains how he beat the Kobayashi Maru simulator.
Posted by: Adam Vandenberg | April 16, 2006 2:15 PM
Oh my! You mean my Trekkie roots have been concealed even from MYSELF??
(Sucks thumb and squeezes comforting plush Sehlat toy.)
Posted by: Hank Fox | April 16, 2006 2:42 PM
Hank, can you post your longer story on UTI?
Posted by: Alon Levy | April 16, 2006 3:11 PM
I work in Houston, in the "oil-n-gas-bidness," and I like it the way I heard a roughneck say it:
"I don't need to own a cattle ranch to know when something's bullshit."
Posted by: speedwell | April 16, 2006 3:48 PM
I'm all for celebrating the true meaning of the season--fertility rites and the rebirth of the earth. As mentioned above (thanks Nathanial), the Egyptians had a "death and resurrection" story long before the Xians, as did other countries (the Norse, for example).
PZ--allow the chocolate and peeps for those who enjoy them....I'll keep the jelly beans, thank you.
Posted by: Dawn | April 16, 2006 4:00 PM
I learned a lot about bears today, thanks Hank :-).
Posted by: skblllzzzz | April 16, 2006 4:44 PM
I like this site.. says it all :)
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god14.htm
Posted by: Gilgamesh | April 16, 2006 4:57 PM
Brutally honest, factually true. Thanks.
Posted by: Enkidu | April 16, 2006 5:32 PM
However, the idea that Jesus "died for my sins", or died for the sinfulness that I inherit from Adam and Eve, makes no sense emotionally. God made His Son suffer considerable discomfort for awhile, so that what? So that there was a blood sacrifice, analogous to sacrificing a goat? By God, to God? Why would an all-knowing, all-powerful deity care about such a thing? And if I accept Jesus as my Personal Savior, God forgives me my sins. Why? What has this acceptance got to do with the cruxifiction?
I think the idea is supposed to be that the members of the human race were facing the electric chair but Jesus got us off on a technicality. I can vaguely see the logic of that - reminds me of Dogma.
The weird bit is the idea that Adam and Eve were capable of contaminating the rest of us - cursing people unto the umpteenth generation was not, last time I checked, considered a sensible way to behave.
Posted by: Corkscrew![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 16, 2006 5:34 PM
Is Jesus Risen? Literal View Gains Ground
Posted by: Pete Dunkelberg | April 16, 2006 6:35 PM
Molly:
I spent a bunch of my formative years in Switzerland, and I bloody well will knock Hershey chocolate eggs, thank you very much. Hershey is to chocolate as Foster's or Bud is to beer.
Posted by: arensb | April 16, 2006 8:56 PM
Good to see some much deserved anger directed towards the notion of faith.
Thomas Jefferson famously said "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
To this I would add:
But it does poison his mind against me, and very likely, the minds of his children against my children. Faith is not harmless, not by a long shot.
Posted by: steve | April 16, 2006 9:00 PM
Steve, well said.
Through the actions they stimulate, beliefs have consequences in the real world.
If they didn't, corporations wouldn't bother with advertising, nations wouldn't bother with patriotism, and religious people wouldn't bother with missionary work.
Posted by: Hank Fox | April 16, 2006 9:11 PM
Carlie:
You've got a point. You remind me of one guest on The Infidel Guy's show, who moved to lots of places with her husband, who was in the military. The thing she missed the most after losing faith was being able to walk into any Baptist church anywhere and being instantly accepted.
No, I'm not going to argue that this is a Bad Thing. There needs to be more love and acceptance in the world. But religion has