…and this is a 
The further delusions of Michael Egnor
Category: Kooks
Posted on: June 25, 2008 7:43 PM, by PZ Myers
Wacky Michael Egnor is complaining that the data showing progress in treatment of some cancers should be credited to the culture of Christianity instead of science, and further claims that "The remarkable progress in the treatment of cancer in the past several decades had a lot to do with faith and prayer."
Hmmm. Given that the data shows a change, a rise in cancer survival within the past few decades, was there some breakthrough in prayer efficacy 20 years ago? Thumbs in vs. thumbs out in the folded hands thing? Accent on the "A-" or on the "men!"? Sudden change from the old useless lazy god to a new and improved go-getter god? I suspect the correlations all show the effectiveness of entirely secular improvements in treatment, since the god-stuff hasn't changed from it's usual ineffectiveness at all.
Egnor makes much of the fact that churches built hospitals, and that the data came from a religiously funded organization. Christians aren't that stupid; they can recognize a successful paradigm when they see it, and can jump on the bandwagon quite well. These hospitals founded by churches are using medicine, not faith, to do their healing. We're sloshing about in the mud of religion, so you can't credit the muck when something rises above the superstition to shine simply because everyone's hands are filthy with dirt.
And this is just disgusting.
Science grew in a culture made fertile by Christian (and Jewish) faith and prayer. When science is explanted from Christian culture and is idolized -- consider evolutionary psychology and eugenics -- it becomes banal and even evil.
Faith and prayer do nothing. They do not make a culture fertile, as we can see by many examples all around the world of quite religious countries that are marked as much by failure as success. His two examples are insane. I disagree with much of evolutionary psychology, but can you think of any evil done by that academic exercise, in particular, anything comparable to the Albigensian Crusade, to name just one example? As for eugenics, that wasn't good science to begin with, and it was endorsed by evangelical Christians. Their god seems to be no better at leading people into right action than no god at all.
All science is explanted from sectarian superstition, and large numbers of scientists are godless — yet rather than banality and evil, they seem to be very successful at discovering wonder and beauty. Egnor's comments are but one step away from the same nonsense Ben Stein was peddling, that "science kills people", and just as ill-founded and ridiculous.
Politics
Comments
It's amazing that they can spiel such nonsense and still be taken seriously by some. It's just as bad as those pushers of New-age medicine, using incredibly tenuous correlation as causation. Though when you deal with the irrational, straws must seem like thick ropes.
Posted by: Kel | June 25, 2008 7:51 PM
I always knew algebra was evil...
Posted by: syntyche | June 25, 2008 7:52 PM
There he goes Egnoring the evidence again.
Posted by: Danley | June 25, 2008 7:53 PM
Posted by: Kel | June 25, 2008 7:55 PM
I live in Thailand. It's 95% Buddhist. Amazingly, I guess, certain cancer rates are down, and people believe in things like compassionate treatment of the ill.
Posted by: ngong | June 25, 2008 7:59 PM
I wish such people would put their money where their mouth is and use only products and lifestyles that come from their religion, and try living without any of the technological and medical advances that their religion fought so hard against.
Although sometime I think that they may have a point. Christianity is so anti-scientific compared to systems such as Confucianism that it may have inspired a backlash against authority which resulted in rapid progress in science. In other words, Christianity may have helped science by producing anti-Christians. But it's only an occasional thought ...
Posted by: Yoo | June 25, 2008 8:03 PM
Science grew in a culture made fertile by Christian (and Jewish) faith and prayer.
Gotta include the Jews, since we need them to bring about the end of the world - right before they convert or suffer eternal damnation!
Posted by: Shaden Freud | June 25, 2008 8:03 PM
"Science grew in a culture made fertile by Christian (and Jewish) faith and prayer. When science is explanted from Christian culture..."
Remarkable how quickly he drops any pretence this is about anything other than Christianity.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | June 25, 2008 8:03 PM
I'm so confused. Here I thought things were getting worse in America because we "kicked God out of the schools," "promoted" homosexuality, let Clinton get a blowjob in the White House, etc. etc.
That God's a wacky fellow. He smites with one hand, cures cancer with the other.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | June 25, 2008 8:04 PM
I'm reminded of a guy my brother came upon while walking down the beach in Florida one say. He tried to sell my brother a "magic" piece of drift wood.
"What's magic about it?" My brother asked.
"It prevents snowstorms," answered the driftwood seller.
"But it has not snowed in Florida for over a century!" my brother told him.
He replied: "See how well it works!"
Posted by: steven Dunlap | June 25, 2008 8:05 PM
I just completed a psych. unit that involved a bit of evolutionary psychology. I read from time to time how it's wrong. What I study in psych. seems perfectly reasonable: we evolved, thus brain structures and behaviours have some adaptive benefit. Mental illness can often be attributed to an adaptive behaviour going haywire, say fear turning into a phobic disorder. I don't get what's wrong with looking at our psychology from an evolutionary perspective. Perhaps there's another evolutionary psychology that I'm not aware of....
Posted by: Brian English | June 25, 2008 8:05 PM
Well, to be fair, Faith-Based Birth Control DOES make a culture more fertile...
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 25, 2008 8:05 PM
Since Islam was the fastest growing religion of the last 20 years then is he willing to accept the possibility that it is the prayers of Muslims that get the job done?
Posted by: Doubting Foo | June 25, 2008 8:06 PM
So let's see, science has improved health care markedly. Also, when certain religious fanatics pray rather than seek science-based treatment for their ill, the ill have tended to die from very curable ailments. Yes, it is clear that prayer is what cures people. I don't know why I couldn't see it before. I must have been blinded by Lucifer, or maybe the Rolling Stones (Heart? Was it Nancy or Ann that had the mark of the devil? I forget).
Posted by: afterthought | June 25, 2008 8:10 PM
Christian Science... now that's a funny one.
Seriously, though, Christians have done more to oppose scientific advances through blocking funding for AIDS and other STDs than I think I can ever forgive them for and, contrary to what this idiot says (PZ already pointed out why that's bullcrap), they haven't done much to promote it.
Posted by: JStein | June 25, 2008 8:10 PM
People will never take responsibility for their actions as long as they believe in a sky fairy who is second guessing them all the time. Further how seriously would anyone take global warming if they though ultimately it was up to God, and no matter how badly we fucked up, he could always step in and fix things.
On the other hand, maybe "thumbs in" really worked after all. Does that mean we wil have to run all those prayer experiments again with different prayer-thumbing protocol?
Posted by: sailor | June 25, 2008 8:10 PM
Yay, Xianity gave rise to science (so the strain goes).
Now, let's throttle biological science.
Hmm, so we should praise the religion of Egnor that gave rise to the science that Egnor despises?
Seems we should kill evolution at its (putative) source: Get rid of Xianity (not really my position (ease it downhill, if possible) but the "logic" of Egnor).
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 25, 2008 8:11 PM
There's a closely related morass of pseudoscience which pretends to be a legitimate application of evolutionary principles to psychology and sociology, and which I've taken to calling "evolutionary phrenology," that uses various logical fallacies, profound misunderstandings of many of the principles of evolution and biology, and pretentious just-so stories in a transparent attempt at retroactively justifying existing societal (and personal) prejudices and existing inequalities in the social order. Said morass is responsible, so far as I can tell, for the vast majority of "evolutionary psychology"'s negative reputation.
Though, it's not clear to me what this has to do with the post. O.o
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 25, 2008 8:12 PM
Yeah, forget about the huge advances in medicine. It must be due to the fact God's ear was relieved from all prayers in the world shouting in his ear momentarily. (I don't know how it happened, OK?)
Posted by: IBYea | June 25, 2008 8:13 PM
...wait, I see the connection now.
Also, I believe I left out their use of woefully incomplete data sets (how appropriate). Further attention should be called to evolutionary phrenologists' extreme cherry-picking of existing data and habitually poor research methodology.
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 25, 2008 8:14 PM
Thanks Azkyroth, it was this quote from the post sparked my question.....
I disagree with much of evolutionary psychology, but can you think of any evil done by that academic exercise, in particular, anything comparable to the Albigensian Crusade, to name just one example?
Ahh, so that evolutionary psychology is something akin to social darwinism. Now I get it. :)
Posted by: Brian English | June 25, 2008 8:15 PM
"Science grew in a culture made fertile by Christian (and Jewish) faith and prayer."
Yeah right, just ask Bruno and Galileo.
Posted by: Bad Albert | June 25, 2008 8:15 PM
This is taking Lying for Jesus™ to a whole new level.
Egnor is saying this and his own people aren't telling him he's out of his fucking gourd?
We need a study where psychologists recruit fundy participants and bring in people who they are told are Xians and who then proceed to tell them the most ridiculous lies* that favour their religion. I'd love to know exactly how outrageous the claims have to be before the credulous actually point out that what they're hearing is beyond stupid.
* more ridiculous, that is, than the standard lies
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 25, 2008 8:15 PM
I think that most of us who criticize evolutionary psychology aren't criticizing it in principle. It's the typical lack of properly controlled data, coupled with many "just-so stories", to which we object.
Make it more rigorous, and I won't object.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 25, 2008 8:15 PM
Exactly. Pick one direction and go with it.
Maybe we'd take Christians more seriously if they didn't all sound like biblical mad libs.
Here. See for yourself. Use the handy fill-in-the-blank guide below to perfectly imitate nearly any Christian in North America:
The ______ (world/USA/evolution is bad) has gotten _______ (better/worse/evolution is bad) since we _______ (put a god-fearing man in the White House/took prayer out of school/evolution is bad). That just proves _______ (God exists/God loves us/God hates
Jewshomosexuals/evolution is bad).Posted by: Brownian, OM | June 25, 2008 8:17 PM
Thanks Glen, there does seem to be some parts of psych. that are just farting in the wind (freudian analysis) as far as I can see. If evo-psych isn't founded on data and falsifiable hypotheses then it doesn't deserve much in the way of respect.
Posted by: Brian English | June 25, 2008 8:18 PM
It tends to be focused more on supposed racial and gender differences; more the latter, lately, since racism has become less socially acceptable than sexism. This piece satirizes some of its more blatant manifestations, for instance.
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 25, 2008 8:21 PM
Fundies building a hospital is a bit like Quakers hiring Paladin (Richard Boone).
Posted by: midwifetoad | June 25, 2008 8:31 PM
Social psychology, on the other hand, kicks ass. Hence my desire to test exactly how ridiculous a lie a fundy needs to hear before he/she realises it's too much. This Egnor thing is suggesting it has to be a lot.
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 25, 2008 8:32 PM
Looks like egnor needs a lesson on who to thank for every thing we have.
Posted by: techskeptic | June 25, 2008 8:35 PM
On the current generic YAHOO homepage is a video news piece on the power of prayer according to that fucking PEWeeeee poll. Perhaps this has bolstered Egnernt into extrapolating senseless data into spin for xian magnanity towards all things sciency... except evolution.
Posted by: jase | June 25, 2008 8:38 PM
I followed the link to that Discovery Institute blog. The first sentence of the little info box at the bottom made me laugh:
That's refreshingly (even if accidentally) honest.
Posted by: Mike | June 25, 2008 8:41 PM
Same crap they've always done. According to Christianity, all the important, creative people of the ancient world, from Sophocles to Cicero to Moses were just christians unlucky enough to be born before Jesus. Just ask Dante. Then there is Christianity's well documented theft of holy sites, rites, and gods from pagan cultures throughout the world. I wonder what it is about this religion in particular that pushes it to co-opt everything it comes across?
Posted by: Julian | June 25, 2008 8:47 PM
I suppose it would be too much to expect Christians to accept the many, many previous studies which have already proven that prayer is ineffective, huh?
They'll just keep puking up poll after poll until someone tells them what they want to hear.
I'm honestly surprised Egnor has the temerity to return to public squawking after how people tend to point out just what a raving lunatic he is. I mean, you'd think that after a while, Egnor would just stick a bone in his beard and go bang rocks together in a cave or something.
Posted by: Capital Dan | June 25, 2008 8:51 PM
Evolutionary psychology suffers when people like Philip Rushton get a lot of press and men like Steven Pinker perhaps not enough.
Posted by: Geoff | June 25, 2008 8:57 PM
Jeez, I am so damn confused. I thought ID wasn't about religion.
"consider evolutionary psychology and eugenics"
Still banging the eugenics drum. What an ass. You know, because he's a brain scientist, I'm going to go ahead and blame him for all the horrors of mental hospitals in the 20th century.
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 25, 2008 9:02 PM
It's probably a good thing that Evolution News and Views doesn't allow comments. I could sure waste a lot of time there every time Dr. Egnor poops out one of these classic stinkers.
Posted by: Albatrossity | June 25, 2008 9:02 PM
"I'm honestly surprised Egnor has the temerity to return to public squawking after how people tend to point out just what a raving lunatic he is."
He's putting on a show for the rubes. And since there's no way to comment on that site, then all the criticism stays on the blogs of crazy evil scientists.
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 25, 2008 9:05 PM
On his blog Egnor "The culture from which science has emerged is Judeo-Christian culture, and modern science has arisen only in Judeo-Christian culture."
Doesn't me mean despite Judeo Christian Culture?
Ok I got my dig in,
Seriously so much of our scientific heritage comes down to us, again Despite the Christians from the greeks, and Muslims, and through the Muslims from India (algebra, many astronomy terms, geometry and a concept of zero, to name a few). Yes, Modern Science did arise in western culture, but it was a product of the enlightnment and a train of thought that got off the christian track a long time ago.
Posted by: Khedrin | June 25, 2008 9:12 PM
As a cancer survivor, I'm disgusted to say the least. Praying certainly didn't put me into remission- the hard work of a team of oncologists, countless nurses and aides, and accompanying valid research or, to be blunt, 'science.' It feels good to have a personal vendetta against Christian-pushers though. :)
Posted by: Steve | June 25, 2008 9:13 PM
Brian, you make some good points. Evolutionary psychology makes some interesting and valid points, and if it can rise the ire of Egnor, must have some merit, but like Marmite it needs to be spread thinly and does not work if used too elastically. It does seem that some human mating patterns follow the EP mode, for example, I understand the ONLY times polyandry is widely practiced is between brothers. While tastes in the opposite sex do change, certain features like symmetry seem universally attractive. Then there is the bit about men being more attracted to good looks and women to men with money and power.
However, before we get carried away, consider honor killings. Impossible to predict that with EP I would think. So while we are imprinted with some behavioral tendencies, there is a lot more to human behavior.
Posted by: sailor | June 25, 2008 9:14 PM
Silly atheists, the Children's Crusade, Inquisition, witch hunts and enslaving native peoples IS christian science.
I am pissed about them using PZ as a vile example, and then claiming god had something to do with cancer treatments.
Posted by: Patricia | June 25, 2008 9:16 PM
So while we are imprinted with some behavioral tendencies, there is a lot more to human behavior.
Indeed we are. Take morality for example, we have evolved the ability to keep score, feel outraged when transgressed, etc all which can be explained by evolution and iterative game theory. What can't be explained by evolution, at least not wholly, is what we hold to be good and bad. This is the product of society and culture. So, evolution can help explain the 'hardware', but not the 'software' as it were.
I was never suggesting evolutionary psychology was THE explanation for everything. Just curious as to why I often have seen it derided.
Posted by: Brian English | June 25, 2008 9:19 PM
What are the cancer success rates, in Xtian hospitals, compared to lay hospitals ?
Why does Egnor thinks that Jewish prayer works too ?
Are Catholic prayers OK ?
Posted by: _Arthur | June 25, 2008 9:23 PM
Let's see, we're, despite Egnor's blandishments, becoming a more secular nation. Further, according to Dobson, et.al., we're becoming an eviler nation. So, clearly it's not Christianity.
If it's not Christianity, it must be the work of Satan. The more people that fall away from religion and engage in homosexuality, fornication, porn-wankery and other sins, the better cancer sufferers perform.
So I think our duty is obvious. In order to help some poor cancer sufferer survive, we need to rush right out and watch some Internet porn. Preferably gay porn. But, I'm sure regular porn will have some effect, too.
Or maybe snort some coke off a hooker's ass.
And we can invite Ted Haggard. Even though he's, now that he's been "cured", gone back to being "completely heterosexual."
Posted by: Moses | June 25, 2008 9:24 PM
Advances, particularly in medicine, were made in spite of the ridiculous befrocked mountebanks of the cloth who objected and frustrated progress at every turn. Now they're doing it again with stem cell research. If we'd listened to the professed tenets of their Levantine goatherds' mythology, we'd still be treating cancer by swallowing spiders rolled in butter and throwing turnips at witches.
I find my gall empty of invective green enough for this skunk-felching gobshite.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | June 25, 2008 9:39 PM
Moses, Ted dropped out of the cure...the 2nd cure that is.
Posted by: Patricia | June 25, 2008 9:42 PM
Wait, isn't this guy a brain surgeon? Like, "scalpel...retractor...sponge...prayer...sponge..."?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 25, 2008 9:48 PM
What Egnor meant to say was that Science grew out of the dessicated and burnt pile of shit that was religion, was nourished by evolution, and promulgated by rational minds, and established itself as the foremost exponent of rational civilization. What Egnor failed to say was that religion grew out of the primitive cesspit of backward sub-minds that evolution deigned not to waste time with, and propagated itself on the demented insanities of cretinous minds that had fecal matter instead of neurons, which could not evolve into a logical brain, and thence could produce nothing by way of rational thought but only shit and plenty of it. Prayer is but additional shit to keep the staus quo in a continual state of shittiness. So ends the shitty part of this drama.
Of course churches build hospitals, but those hospitals are staffed with science trained medical doctors, nurses and other support personnel, and a myriad amount of medicines, equipment, and a program of constant updates in medical knowledge. And yet how insanely disingenuous are religious hospitals to have the freaking audacity not to eliminate these services but to provide only a cot and prayers for the recovery of sick and dying patients. Even a rabid religionist when given a choice of a hospital that will most assuredely aid his recovery, or a religious hospital that only offers prayers to aid his likely demise, is never insane enough to choose prayer mumbling idiots. Even that moron Egnor, when pressed to his choice will definitely not choose the prayer sanitarium. This only proves the fact that when a person's life is at stake, even when that person is a certified moron, is sane enough to choose the rational option. This again only proves how bullshit religion is powerless in the face of stark reality. Pray for me? Like shit you will, mutters the idiot Egnor. Why, don't you trust your imaginary god to heal you, you freaking heel, you crappy piece of religious drivel? I only wish that that moron and others like him were placed in such a precarious decision, and then we shall observe how denigrated science will be the undisputed choice.
Posted by: Holbach | June 25, 2008 9:50 PM
I'd like to flashforward a hundred years and see what the Xians are claiming they were responsible for - no doubt things like homosexuality and stem-cell research, which society will have advanced enough to accept, will be amongst the things the churches (if society hasn't advanced sufficiently to make them unneccessary) claim they were for rather than against.
No doubt the propoganda will be repeated as often as the 'eyewitness account' of PZ's deathbed conversion...
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 25, 2008 9:53 PM
Given these amazing improvements in "prayer technology," why hasn't cancer been completely wiped out?
I'm reminded of those double-blind prayer experiments where whole congregations praying resulted in something like a 1.4% improvement in the outcomes of ill patients. Is that really the kind of God you want to believe in? That massive amounts of prayer produce only the the most marginal of improvements, which may or may not even be statistically significant?
Doesn't seem like the kind of God that is worthy of awe, admiration, and worship.
Posted by: MZ | June 25, 2008 9:53 PM
I'd like Egnor to give some statistics on how effective faith and prayer are in regrowing amputated limbs.
Posted by: JoJo | June 25, 2008 9:55 PM
#6: be careful what you wish for
Posted by: BellaB | June 25, 2008 9:57 PM
theres a good reason why prayer is often used as a last resort by those who might not otherwise bother with it.
Posted by: extatyzoma | June 25, 2008 9:58 PM
heh, the link I was trying to include was: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/none_so_blind_as_those_who_wil.php
I probably screwed up the HTML somehow...
Posted by: BellaB | June 25, 2008 9:59 PM
#48 - Dammit! There went my sangria out my nose like shite through a goose. Brain surgeon?!
I'm going outside to twirl...
Posted by: Patricia | June 25, 2008 10:05 PM
Then there is the bit about men being more attracted to good looks and women to men with money and power.
Hey, look, I've already got an N and an O (hell maybe even an I) on the BINGO. I wonder whether I can get a full card by the end of tomorrow.
Posted by: limes | June 25, 2008 10:09 PM
*golf clap*
That was nice. I don't use the standard Olympic scale of judging, but if I did, I'd say you landed a solid 8.
Anyway, pretty soon Christians are going to say they put a man on the moon, invented the automobile, perfected shoelaces and cured polio. They're just cute when it they piggyback on the success of other, more-deserving, people.
Posted by: Capital Dan | June 25, 2008 10:10 PM
Patricia:
By all means. As the companions of my mis-spent youth used to say, "When in doubt, twirl!"
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 25, 2008 10:21 PM
Go to:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=33164341&postID=4006526768946669673
and comment.
Posted by: Rob | June 25, 2008 10:27 PM
PZ: Learn to use the apostrophe!!!
"Its" is the possessive.
"It's" is a contraction of "it is".
Thank you.
Posted by: Kimpatsu | June 25, 2008 10:33 PM
"The hookworm was discovered two or three years ago by a physician, who had been patiently studying its victims for a long time. The disease induced by the hookworm had been doing its evil work here and there in the earth ever since Shem landed at Ararat, but it was never suspected to be a disease at all. The people who had it were merely supposed to be lazy, and were therefore despised and made fun of, when they should have been pitied. The hookworm is a peculiarly sneaking and underhanded invention, and has done its work unmolested for ages; but that physician and his helpers will exterminate it now.
God is back of this. He has been thinking about it for six thousand years, and making up his mind. The idea of exterminating the hookworm was his. He came very near doing it before Dr. Charles Wardell Stiles did. But he is in time to get the credit of it. He always is.
Posted by: tresmal | June 25, 2008 10:38 PM
Ho-hum. Why do we pay attention to his Egnor-Rant (tm) screeds anyway?
Posted by: madder | June 25, 2008 10:38 PM
I'm tempted to point out two grammatical errors in Kimpatsu's post #61. But I'll be nice.
Posted by: JoJo | June 25, 2008 10:40 PM
Close quote. That was from Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain (the Victorian Pharyngulite)
Posted by: tresmal | June 25, 2008 10:40 PM
Hey at least some the medical providers operating within these Christian temples to science, appear to be putting the needs of their patients before their heavenly-inspired gate keepers.
Catholic hospitals betray mission
http://www.wikileaks.orgwiki/Catholic_hospitals_betray_mission
Posted by: MissAgentGirl | June 25, 2008 10:42 PM
It's certainly the case that many people's manifest preferences match that characterization to some degree, and not incredible that, even after stripping all the the sociocultural baggage away, there might be some biological bias in each of those directions for each gender, but an epidemic tendency towards A) treating this as a Self-Evident Fact rather than a plausible hypothesis in need of testing and support, and/or B) doing a sort of bait-and-switch with "there might be some biological bias in that direction" and the folk psychology Article of Faith that these tendencies are universal and overwhelming, tend to kill the credibility of those discussing the issue.
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 25, 2008 10:42 PM
No, see? Egnor's just learned how to make a fallacious result using an ecological analysis! He noticed that cancer survival rates have been improving in the past few decades, and look here! we also see that the religious right has taken some political power, and televangelists have earned wealth and lots of followers in the past few decades, too! Therefore, on the group level, religiosity and cancer survival are correlated. And that totally means that religiosity causes those improved cancer survival rates. Don't worry about any of those confounding factors, like scientific advancement, or anything, it'll just confuse you. And definitely, don't mind those individual-level observations, sitting in the background, that excessive faith causes people to forgo good medical treatment, and therefore reduce their survival rates. That doesn't matter. Just keep looking at the group-level correlation while I try to contrive a mechanism for how this might work out. Lol.
Oh, and my personal favourite piece of Egnor's post, when he was quoting PZ:
Gah! He thinks "millennia" is wrong? I don't even know how to respond to that.Posted by: mona | June 25, 2008 10:46 PM
DAMMIT! I go again...
Catholic hospitals betray mission
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Catholic_hospitals_betray_mission
Posted by: MissAgentGirl | June 25, 2008 10:47 PM
Science grew in a culture made fertile by Christian (and Jewish) faith and prayer.
maybe he meant in the sense of bullshit acting as fertilizer?
In that sense, I'd have to agree:
Science arose out of the obvious and copious failures of religion to explain just about anything.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 25, 2008 10:50 PM
It's just instance of Christians trying to co-opt and take credit for any successful enterprise. For instance, the US Constitution was a document authored by many Enlightenment thinkers of various faiths which centered on the principle of self-rule, primarily by Jefferson, who famously edited out all supernatural occurrences from his bible. Yet today Christians insist that America is a Christian nation that used the 10 commandments as its spiritual basis. This historical revisionism gives them the excuse they need to justify all manner of unconstitutional actions, so it is also one which they do a great deal to promote.
Likewise, Egnor refuses to acknowledge science's secular nature and insists its success somehow depends on Christian theology. It's a lie, of course, but it's a lie he needs to believe in order to blunt the cutting edge of rationality. By making science subservient and indebted to his dogma, he can pretend revealed religion trumps mere reality. It's a way of insisting that even the nonreligious owe fealty to his personal superstition.
Posted by: H.H. | June 25, 2008 11:01 PM
Egnor is yet another asshole who attempts to distort science to fit his political agenda. For a grown human being to be so completely enamoured with an imaginary fantasy perpetuated through millenia, a large number of brain cells must have to die horrible, senseless deaths. Therefore, it's hard for me to imagine a grown adult, with all the faculties to speak, and communicate effectively, believing delusional nonesense. They have convinced themselves or are truly lying only to further their personal cause with distorting the truth amongst the ignorant sheep. When your audience is composed of uneducated, illiterate, sanctimonious, and fearfull assholes, there's no end in how far they're willing to carry your lying ass on their backs. These supposed Christians and Jews that supposedly helped cultural fertility would be better off locked in a tight room arguing about their interpretation of some imaginary omnipotent deity, while the rest of us adults, can actually attempt to make the world a better place. When these religious fucks actually shut the fuck up and see their use of medicine, transportation, technology and other such factors that contribute to their comforting lives, perhaps they'll come to appreciate what hard working individuals can accomplish when they focus on reason, empirical evidence, and the real world.
Posted by: Helioprogenus | June 25, 2008 11:03 PM
So many misconceptions in Egnor's piece, where to begin?
Egnor:
First of all, he completely misses the point of the PZ post he quoted:
In other words, what PZ is saying is that science works, magic (prayers, incantations, etc.) doesn't. If Egnor had wanted to actually respond to PZ's argument, he would have come forth with evidence that prayer does work as a healing modality, and that it might, for example, be a good idea to take a child with cancer to John of God, rather than St. Jude's Hospital.
Instead, he ducks PZ's point and argues that the "culture" of "Judeo-Christian" belief favors the development of medical science and the funding of hospitals. Even if his argument were incontrovertible (it isn't), the very most it would prove is that Judaism and Christianity are Noble Lies that help create a better society. His argument does nothing to validate the contention that the Abrahamic god, angels, devils, and the like actually exist and have real power in the world.
Unfortunately for Egnor, it just isn't so that "Judeo-Christian" religion and culture are responsible for the birth of science, medical or otherwise. First of all, it should be pointed out that Christianity is the bastard child of Greek philosophy/mysticism and ancient Jewish dogmatism. All of the "sophisticated" theology existed long before Christianity in Hellenistic thought.
The very idea of attempting rational arguments to validate belief in a god or elucidate its attributes is foreign to the Bible, but a staple of Greek philosophy. The "rational god" who creates an orderly Universe operating according to rationally comprehensible mathematical and geometric principles is the god of Pythagoras, Plato, and Plotinus, not the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Has he failed to notice that doctors take the Hippocratic Oath? "Hippocrates" doesn't sound like a Biblical prophet to me. Or that the symbol used to represent the medical profession is the Cadeuceus, the staff of Hermes? The scientists at Alexandria were producing steam engines, mechanical computers, and programmable robots, for cryin' out loud. And who was it that burnt the Library down? Oh, yeah, those pro-science Christians led by "Saint" Cyril.
The Bible does not proclaim the existence of an orderly natural Universe in which science would be efficacious. It is filled from stem to stern with tales of talking animals, magicians turning staffs into serpents, healing-by-exorcism, and magic powers. The Bible is full of exhortations to trust God instead of human action, and proposes medical advice like the following:
--James 5:14-15
In a nutshell, if you extract the infusion of Greek philosophy from "Judeo-Christian" culture, what you've got left is primitive, anti-scientific superstition and magic. It would make more sense to call it "Greco-Christian" culture. And it's the "Greco-" that gave us our science, not the "Christian."
Egnor attributes the founding of St. Jude's Hospital to Danny Thomas' prayer. Maybe so, but the question arises: who answered Danny Thomas' prayer? Egnor includes no mention of apparitions of deities, or angels providing Thomas with acting lessons. Why should "god" get all the credit for Danny Thomas' hard work in pursuing his acting career? Danny Thomas answered Danny Thomas' prayer, not "god."
Let's be generous and grant that "belief-in-god" provided Danny Thomas with the strength of will to keep trying after each tryout rejection, etc. until he became a success, and motivated him to fund St. Jude's instead of building a bigger mansion. All that says is that Catholicism works really well as a Noble Lie. It provides no evidence for the existence of Catholic deities, saints, etc..
By that standard, one could point out that belief in Amun-Re, Isis, Osiris, etc. motivated the construction of engineering marvels like the Pyramids and the Temple of Karnak, and the creation of a stable culture that endured for 4,000 years. Compared to that, Catholicism is still in short pants. Should we all go worship Amun-Re and Hathor now?
Posted by: kcrady | June 25, 2008 11:03 PM
Can someone do up one of those 'demotivational' posters, you know, the sort with the picture above a pithy saying?
Liars for Jesus™:
There are no depths to which we won't stoop.
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 25, 2008 11:10 PM
Oh really, remarkable progress? If the effect is so significant then perhaps you'd like to conduct a double blind trial of the efficacy of "Prayer" on cancer patients. It wouldn't be that hard, just get cancer patients with similar cancers and prognoses, tell both groups of patients that they will have a group of volunteers pray for them for half an hour each day in a room next door.
The first group would be praying hard to their God to help the patient get better, where as the placebo group would just sit around and read a book, do the New York Times crossword etc. etc.
There are a few problems though with experimental variables such as (and not limited to);
1. Which God?
2. Which denomination?
3. Is it necessary that the volunteers be theistic? What if they are actually Atheists/Catholics/Jews/Queers*, will their prayers still reach God, or will they go unnoticed. Even worse, what happens if they pray to the wrong God, and make the real God/Gods/IPU/FSM mad and cause the cancer to get worse?
4. Does the patient have to be theistic? Do they have to be a good person? What if they are a good person but not theistic? What if they are a bad person but are theistic? What about if they are a bisexual, transgender culturally jewish but atheist evolutionary biologist?
Since Mr Egnor has failed to provide a specific mechanism, much less a broad mechanism to describe the action of prayer and christianity on the treatment of cancer, and has failed to provide any quantitative evidence that prayer improves the survival rates for cancer sufferers such an experiment may be difficult to design.
Indeed, the entire premise of his argue can summarise with one of his quotes;
And then makes the leap that because atheists think that a magical sky fairy might not be the only place to get a sense of morality, judeo-christianity is necessary for a compassionate use of science.
Well you can just go ahead and suck my cock Egnor. I grow tired of being told that without your sercurity camera in the sky and goat-hearding myths I'd be running around raping and murdering people, and modern medicine would be more concerned with weight loss and impotence drugs...oh wait, scratch that last one.
*Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and any other private consensual feeling or behaviour that makes baby Jesus cry.
**Woah, whats the deal with the text on the DI site? I had to type it in manually as it wouldn't let my copy and paste.
Posted by: Lightnin | June 25, 2008 11:13 PM
Posted by: Yoo | June 25, 2008 11:14 PM
Here is something to share on a related topic; it is comical yet indictative of the current bullshit religion.
I have been reading quite a few of the books in the past weeks by the author Andrei Codrescu, whom some of you may know as a commentator on NPR's "All Things Considered'. I am currently reading his book, "The Devil Never Sleeps, And Other Essays". This essay is titled "Animals: The Thin Furry Line Between Us And The Devil". He humorizes that the animals are laughing at us humans for the many silly things we do, and gives several examples why this is so funny as they see it. Among reasons: "Sixth, animals crack up when they see humans imagining themselves living after death in all kinds of perfect places that resemble luxory hotels, or, on the contrary, roasting forever in fires of pitch and guilt. Animals watch people go into big, empty buildings called churches and talk to themselves in there, until they are so impressed with themselves that they try to convince others to come to their building. When others refuse to follow them, they sometimes kill them."
Those very animals would be rolling on the ground if they observed the antics of Comfort, Egnor and the many more idiotic religious dolts who give humans a bad name!
Posted by: Holbach | June 25, 2008 11:30 PM
#74-- I'm working on it now. In the meantime, here's something the Image Google gave me.
Posted by: mona | June 25, 2008 11:55 PM
#59 - Sven - Thankyou ever so much! That's exactly what I ment...I feel better now. :)
The christians are so happy to forget what they have said through history, they think we should forget too. No chance.
Socrates died for speaking out, Hypatia was flayed in the streets for speaking the truth, book burnings & lieing didn't work then, it isn't going to work now. This jackass wants to take credit for the very science the church has killed for? Sappho and Oscar Wilde were discredited and driven to the ground for not conforming. Bullshit.
Posted by: Patricia | June 26, 2008 12:00 AM
Posted by: mona | June 26, 2008 12:17 AM