Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
We do not want holy books, but true ones; not sacred writings, but sensible writings.
[Lemuel K. Washburn, Is The Bible Worth Reading And Other Essays]
Bilateral symmetry in a sea anemone
The proper reverence due those who have gone before
Upstream plasticity and downstream robustness in evolution of molecular networks
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« I don't think this is the message he wanted me to come away with | Main | Netroots Nation »
Category: Godlessness • Religion
Posted on: July 18, 2008 3:02 PM, by PZ Myers
…and a knife-fight did not break out. Heads were spinning on necks and there was some pea-soup vomiting, but since it's on radio you don't get to see that. Anyway, you can listen to the interview on Catholic Radio International, or you can download the mp3 directly.
Comments
Posted by: BlueIndependent | July 18, 2008 3:10 PM
Listening now. Go figure: A Christian radio station using public airwaves to push religious conservative "it's a republic" positions...
Posted by: Aegis | July 18, 2008 3:11 PM
Listening now; I have to say that by the intros I am not particularly enthused - I'll take your word PZ that this is worth it.
Posted by: Todd | July 18, 2008 3:19 PM
I'm listenting now too. If the "it's a republic" bit is any indication I'm going to need a new computer before this is over.
Posted by: charfles | July 18, 2008 3:20 PM
Ugh, the priest's opening statements are so weak. This might be hard to finish.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 18, 2008 3:21 PM
Wait until you get to the part where he starts contradicting everything he said before.
You are all required to commend me on my restraint, too.
Posted by: Fergus Gallagher | July 18, 2008 3:22 PM
The mp3 is actually here:
http://www.catholicradiointernational.com/heartofmatter/mp3/hom_071808.mp3
Posted by: Matthew | July 18, 2008 3:25 PM
PZ,
Apparently, you (and I) have rejected the "presentation" of god. So really, what we have here is a failure of marketing and nothing more. In other words, EVERYONE is ready to accept to god but sometimes the message has not been crafted to reach all of them, yet.
I'm an atheist myself and work in the IT field. Perhaps I'd respond better to an online god (in blog form?) with associated PDF files containing various literature.
Posted by: SC | July 18, 2008 3:28 PM
Haven't listened yet. What's with the logo? It's freakin' me out.
Posted by: tyaddow | July 18, 2008 3:31 PM
Wow, I wasn't sure the host would ever let the guests speak. Then when the priest started in I wasn't sure I actually wanted to hear him at all. Ugh. 'Atheists reject the idea of god that has been presented to them'? Why not just admit that you haven't really been following the discussion at all and bow out?
Posted by: Jeff Arnold | July 18, 2008 3:34 PM
I have to say that I'm impressed by how cordial this whole conversation is going. I expected the god-folk to be more rude and interrupting. At the same time, I DO commend you on your restraint Dr Myers. As far as discussions between atheists and christians go, this one might actually be productive!
Posted by: Geoff | July 18, 2008 3:34 PM
Yeah Wow! I felt sorry for that priest. Clearly he's found himself into quite an electrically charged, flaming pickle.
Posted by: MH | July 18, 2008 3:41 PM
Father Loya is coming across as a second-rate obscurantist. Very poor.
host: "that's well said, father"
err... no it isn't.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | July 18, 2008 3:45 PM
The first sentence of this post instantly made me think of a song my daughter currently has on her iPod, Knife Fight, which begins with a bunch of hyperaggressive posturing about an upcoming (you guessed it) knife fight... until the protagonist realizes that a knife fight might turn out to be dangerous... at which point he proposes a tickle fight instead! The lyrics are here, but you won't get the full effect unless you hunt down the audio. (I'm somewhat limited in hunting for media links by the filtering software on my work computer, or I'd post a link.)
Posted by: GirBoBytons | July 18, 2008 3:48 PM
Wow PZ, I hate talking about religion with people who are religious because it seems you run in circles and it gets frustrating..."You know more about something by not knowing about it"??? WHAT??? Bullshitting for Bullshits sake? Now hes trying to make you seem religious lol. I am proud of you for sitting through this and talking to them. I heart you, you did much better than what I would have restraint wise!!!
Posted by: B.Dewhirst | July 18, 2008 3:51 PM
I'm 18 minutes in, and wishing there were thumb screws... masterful handling from PZ, but this is ping-pong with one party's hands tied and a partial ref.
Posted by: Enkidu | July 18, 2008 3:51 PM
I gotta say, this is spot on. Every idea of "God" that's been presented to me has been both internally contradictory and completely lacking evidence supporting its existence.My question is "Why haven't you, Father Godbot, rejected the idea of God?" Slapping a 'mysterious' sticker across it does not make it internally consistent, and a bucket of 'faith' is not evidence.
Posted by: MH | July 18, 2008 3:52 PM
"theological anthropology"
{head-desk}
Posted by: Todd | July 18, 2008 3:53 PM
@# 12 MH
Agreed. I also note his constant, almost irritating, reference to "real scholarship" etc. Loya's idea of science is severely warped. For example, medicine based science doesn't consider, to paraphrase, "alternative" ideas. He apparently has no idea of the scientific process which does look at alternative areas but finds them lacking.
PZ - your restaint was saintly.
Posted by: scooter | July 18, 2008 3:53 PM
Off Topic and Self Promotion ALERT!!
Catholics Hijacked by Christo-Fascists AGAIN!!
KPFT Houston, Pacifica Radio
PZ Myers debacle escalates,
http://acksisofevil.org/audio/inner188.mp3
or download from http://acksisofevil.org/innerside.html
Music by Tom Lehrer
spoken word, Sam Harris
-------------------------
you tube eucharist Challenge
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Iq_XZuF6Vsk
Posted by: Aegis | July 18, 2008 3:56 PM
Nice guy, for the most part. He's not too great on the logic front. It sure is nice that the host finally gave PZ a chance to speak, because there are so MANY fallacious statements that it's hard to address them all. In fact, I find this the hardest part of speaking to the religious. They say SO MANY poorly formed arguments in such a short time that it's difficult to address them cogently.
Posted by: MH | July 18, 2008 3:56 PM
Father Loya a global-warming denier! Who'd have thunk it!
Posted by: Danio | July 18, 2008 3:57 PM
And the host knew it too, because he immediately rephrased his opening question to Fr.
LiarLoya, to wit: 'Can we affirm the existence of god, and why?' (I note he didn't bother to add 'or why not' :)Feh. PZ, your restraint is indeed commendable. I wouldn't have been able to let Loya blather on like that without at least a chortle escaping down the telephone line.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 18, 2008 3:59 PM
I may or may not get around to listening when I'm at home, but: yeah, I reject the gods (plural: there have been several versions) that have been presented to me -- including the ones I used to believe in. Well, except for the gods that seemed to be just irrelevant to anything -- there wasn't any *point* in believing in them.
Now if someone has a god I haven't yet heard of, I'm happy to listen (if I don't have anything better to do).
Posted by: MH | July 18, 2008 4:00 PM
Aegis #20 "They say SO MANY poorly formed arguments in such a short time that it's difficult to address them cogently."
That'll be the Gish Gallop. It's an old tactic.
Posted by: Coriolis | July 18, 2008 4:02 PM
Obscurantism, no true scotsman BS ("true catholicism" galore); zomg love!=material, hence materialism=wrong... really I'm amazed that PZ can sit through that drivel. Shit, I can't put entropy or EM waves in your hand either, maybe they are now religious concepts too eh? Or maybe you just don't have a clue about what empirical science actually implies.
And then they whine when we call them ignorant. Really, it's an offense to ignorant people. At least some of them aren't impeded by their pompousness and might learn something one day.
Posted by: JerryL | July 18, 2008 4:02 PM
What's with "True Catholicism" and "True Science". Then there was the part about Catholicism not being a religion? This guy is way out of his league.
I've heard better arguments from 5 year olds.
Posted by: Celeste | July 18, 2008 4:02 PM
I had to give up about 20 minutes in. You handled yourself very well, PZ. It helps that you are somebody a person can listen to; the host's vocal affectations were so clumsy and distracting. I too thought he would never let you speak.
So, where can I buy a Frakkin' Cracker t-shirt?
Posted by: skyotter | July 18, 2008 4:09 PM
you showed outstanding restraint, Professer Myers. but maybe too much ... did you really wait until the very end to bring up the death threats you'd received?
Posted by: Neural T | July 18, 2008 4:09 PM
I love how Father Loya takes 10 minutes to explain his point, all the while the moderator is going "mmm-hmmm," agreeing with him, and when you respond, he interrupts within 20 seconds.
Posted by: skyotter | July 18, 2008 4:10 PM
and did i really just write "professer"?
*hangs head in shame*
Posted by: spgreenlaw | July 18, 2008 4:11 PM
"Real Catholicism..." "Real scholarship..."
No true Scotsman, eh Father?
Posted by: Anon | July 18, 2008 4:11 PM
They needed a Social Psychologist on with you--there are several who have made careers out of studying Love. They wasted about 10 minutes on that misconception.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | July 18, 2008 4:11 PM
"Apparently, you (and I) have rejected the "presentation" of god. So really, what we have here is a failure of marketing and nothing more"
Perhaps theists need some lessons in framing.
Posted by: wombat | July 18, 2008 4:11 PM
Ungh. I've heard this same pablum from the genial priest/pastor/imam before. The go on and on about the "real" faith then do whatever they can to confuse the definitions of empirical to mean whatever anyone thinks they experience. Most of what the priest said was about as coherent as randomly flipping through the dictionary and writing down the first word on the given page to make a sentence.
The host asks the real question. Can we know the god exists? And how can we know? What does the father do? Well he deftly AVOIDS the question and instead veers off into a horrible epistemological discussion. Here merely deflects the question because he know the real answers are "No" and "There's no evidence to reference".
He does actually give up the game at one point when he's discussing how he would love for the entire world to believe the Catholic faith because of the "joy" it provides him. But the existence or non-existence of anything, be it god or otherwise, has nothing whatsoever to do with what provides the Father with joy, happiness, sadness, frustration, anger or any other emotion. That was his only real moment of candor in the entire interview.
Posted by: MH | July 18, 2008 4:13 PM
You present a great deal, PZ! I hope the Catholic Church takes you up on it. It'll be a good way to end this cracker nonsense.
Posted by: Todd | July 18, 2008 4:14 PM
With regard to Loya's closing statement: Where can I get what he's smoking?
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 18, 2008 4:15 PM
I could he say that there is nothing in his catholic beliefs that is not "undergird" by empirical evidence ?
"Science undergirds EVERYTHING that the REAL catholic faith proposes !"
So then you said that for example transsubtantiation was not supported in any way by any kind of science, and that was it ?
Why did you let him go away with it ?
I found you were sooo reserved, why didn't you tell him that he wouldn't himself be able to tell the difference with a cracker ? That it was absolutely impossible.
That even the catholic church recognizes this for a fact, ie, that it is impossible to recognize transubstantiation with empirical evidence, but only with faith, as it is written in their own catechism :
It's a pitty you didn't quote him that line from St Thomas, that would have completely caught him by surprise, that poor father with his coldswallop.
What a pitty.
Posted by: C R | July 18, 2008 4:16 PM
Perhaps it was due to Satan's minions buzzing in my ear, but whenever the priest spoke, all I heard was "blah, blah, blah, empirical evidence, blah, blah ,blah, love, blah, blah, blah", . Did he ever attempt to make a statement which wasn't meaningless, dogmatic BS? His arguments were very, weak, and I was amused at listening to the Father chase his tail on science. How the hell does science "undergurd" his religion when centuries of scientific advancement have stripped religion and god of their place in understanding the universe. PZ, are you sure weren't being pranked by Hannity and Combs hepped up on lithium?
And I loved the insistence on understanding "true" Catholicism. Ohh, that makes me feel SO much better. All-in-all, PZ was a light of reason in a theological fog.
Lastly, the host's insistence on making light of the Webster Cook deaths threats to the point of doubting them was pathetic. We here Christians asking why Muslims don't take extremists to task. I'm still waiting for Christians to practice what they preach.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 18, 2008 4:18 PM
...and a knife-fight did not break out.
C'mon now - who would dare to pull a knife on someone known to be armed with a cyberpistol?
Posted by: Capital Dan | July 18, 2008 4:18 PM
Just started listening... Well... I started listening a while back, but this host just keeps rattling on and on and on and on...
Does anyone other than this retard get a chance to speak?
Posted by: C R | July 18, 2008 4:19 PM
"We hear Christians", I mean. I promise i got me some of dat book lernin'.
Posted by: W. | July 18, 2008 4:19 PM
I lasted until about 20 minutes as well. I just could not take it. I wanted to get mad but the father was so nice. Not smart, not logical but nice.
Posted by: steve_h | July 18, 2008 4:19 PM
Whens the follow up "real" discussion - the one with PZ not invited? :)
As per instructions, "nice restraint"; Though I would have preferred it if you were a little less restrained in places - especially after the "there's no part of my beliefs not undergirded by science" (owtte) remark.
Posted by: Neural T | July 18, 2008 4:20 PM
Oh yeah. Nailed him on the contradiction. Get move.
Posted by: LaTomate | July 18, 2008 4:23 PM
You win this debate, PZ.
It is quite simple though: I don't see how a shaman in magic robes can pronounce magic words over a biscuit and turn it into the body of a 2000 old dead preacher.
Posted by: Neural T | July 18, 2008 4:25 PM
I must say, though, that Catholics are way more articulate than your typical fundie.
Posted by: Apikoros | July 18, 2008 4:26 PM
Restraint? They barely let you speak!
(I want a Frackin' Cracker t-shirt, too!)
Posted by: GirBoBytons | July 18, 2008 4:27 PM
I'm finishing this up right now. They need to do some "real science" to find out whether or not its really the flesh of christ. Bring me evidence of that and I will not longer look at it like its just a crappily made, tasteless cracker. I've noticed a lot of the hosts on these radio shows including your debate with Simmons they say "To be fair"...well....to be fair its just a frackin cracker!
Posted by: Randy | July 18, 2008 4:30 PM
I got pretty far into it before I realized there weren't going to be any "An atheist and a priest walk into a bar" jokes.
Would anyone like to help me out? Extra points for working crackers into it somewhere.
Posted by: tsg | July 18, 2008 4:30 PM
I would love for the entire world to like pepperoni the way I do because of the joy it provides me.
Doesn't that convince you to like pepperoni?
Posted by: Em | July 18, 2008 4:31 PM
That was painful! I couldn't get through half of it. That priest just droned on and on. I may try to listen to the rest of it later if I have trouble getting to sleep.
And I want a Frackin Cracker shirt too!
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | July 18, 2008 4:31 PM
The fun we have with special words--
Like saying Science "undergirds"
One form of superstition;
The science that we label "real"
Is only that which lets me feel
I'm right in my position.
We use our scientific doubt
To throw the cheating bastards out
Who disagree with me;
The benefit from all these pains?
Just see the data that remains--
It's proof I'm right, you see!
Posted by: John Mark | July 18, 2008 4:33 PM
That was terrible, I couldn't even last fifteen minutes. I wish people would just let you speak and let you set all the groundwork instead of talking over you.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 18, 2008 4:33 PM
It's not an argument, it just a turn of phrase! (on the "you can't measure love" argument).
Posted by: tsg | July 18, 2008 4:34 PM
Sign me up for a Frackin' Cracker shirt, as long as I'm at it.
Posted by: Matthew | July 18, 2008 4:34 PM
"I wanted to get mad but the father was so nice. Not smart, not logical but nice."
When I come from (England), the priest would have doubtless gone into the Church of England which is the religious equivalent of sugar free, caffeine free, transparent, colorless, odorless vitamin water.
Posted by: Martin | July 18, 2008 4:34 PM
Am I the only one who giggled when he said "That pickle's like people who are Christians", and on the right side of the screen that little device he had looked suspiciously like a gallows?
Posted by: John Mark | July 18, 2008 4:35 PM
Oh yes, and:
I WANT A 'FRACKIN' CRACKER' T-SHIRT TOO.
Posted by: Aegis | July 18, 2008 4:35 PM
The worst part at is frankly the end. He essentially disavows the culpability that the church has for falsely teaching that a cracker is the literal god of their religion.
Oddly, when members of PZ's side got out of hand, he directly admonished and condemned the behavior and took action to stop it. But the Catholic league (referred to amazingly by the host as a secular organization) and Catholics threatening PZ with death are given the pass of the untrue Scotsman. Sickening, even though addressed in polite words by the priest.
It's apparent from this talk why groups like Bill D and evangelical churches are growing. The Catholic church has mellowed in its old age, and is no longer mean spirited and vengeful enough for many of its members.
Posted by: Neural T | July 18, 2008 4:36 PM
You all should listen after about 35 minutes, because they get into the wafer controversy.
Posted by: Martin | July 18, 2008 4:36 PM
Eh, commented on the wrong story. Damn you to hell, tabbed browsing!
Posted by: Beowulff | July 18, 2008 4:37 PM
It seemed to me that the speaking time wasn't really fairly divided though, I felt that the priest got way more talking time. But maybe that's just because it was so much more painful to listen to him...
Posted by: Menno | July 18, 2008 4:40 PM
I'm sorry but I gave up before hearing PZ speak. It's just too mind-numbing for a lte friday night.
Posted by: MH | July 18, 2008 4:42 PM
And has anyone else noticed that religious people have real trouble with the concept of an "analogy"? Walking into a mosque and taking the Qur'an is not the same as accepting the gift of a cracker and mailing it to someone. A suitable analogy would be going to a friend's barbecue, being given a hot-dog, and instead of eating it there, wrapping it in a napkin and taking it home. If someone did that to me, I might think it a bit strange, but I wouldn't condone wrestling it off him, or threats of job-loss or death.
(oh, and another example of Qur'an envy!)
Posted by: frank | July 18, 2008 4:42 PM
Wow, PZ your restraint was admirable. Especially when you pointed out his outright contradiction ("You can't measure love"..."all the science I know undergirds my faith"). That was in the first few minutes too. Amazing.
Posted by: Rose Colored Glasses | July 18, 2008 4:43 PM
That was not at all 'cordial'. Whatever PZ said, Loya came back directly contradicting him, splitting the argument into two parts, one that is misguided, but one that is something else, implying that PZ was uninformed and needed only explanations to get his misconceptions corrected. Whenever Loya said 'science undergirds' something, he meant it figuratively speaking, not literally, in the sense that something in the real world reminds Loya of some idea in the invented world. The fact that he played with metaphors while disguising them as literal statements means his lying is deliberate.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 18, 2008 4:44 PM
You did completely win this debate though, especially because of the second part, and when you suggested that the catholic church should disavowe Bill Donohue which didn't seem to be rejected by the father nor the interviewer.
Let's get Donohue fired !
Posted by: Neural T | July 18, 2008 4:47 PM
"They don't hand out the Eucharist, either. Maybe, physically, that's what happens..."
In other words, that's what happens.
Not to mention, as you (PZ) said, people already go to church -- probably in every mass, in every town, on every Sunday -- who take the Eucharist without properly confessing, or believing in transubstantiation, or Jesus, or God. So they're already "offending the Host," and nobody knows about it, and there's no way for the Church to stop it. What difference does it make, then, if they palm it rather than letting it dissolve in their mouth?
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | July 18, 2008 4:51 PM
Either you religion do "faith" or religion do "evidence." You religion "faith" sometimes and "evidence" sometimes, *squish* just like grape.
Posted by: Keith B | July 18, 2008 4:52 PM
These guys threw a thousand points of nonsense at PZ and gave him only seconds to respond before interrupting him again and again. No wonder they "enjoyed the conversation," they were mostly talking to themselves and unable to bear to hear the fullness of the contradictory view. There are so many really amazing secular answers to all of those questions and points that they raised and, unfortunately, they'll never hear them.
But, in the end, it all boils down to just one thing: just because Catholics imagine that there's more going on with the Communion than just eating a wafer on their knees doesn't make it true unless they can empirically prove it. End of story.
Posted by: AJ Hawks | July 18, 2008 4:53 PM
I have thought about this in the most un-biased way I can, and viewed it in the "they have the right to believe this, i have the right to not believe it"
And I have decided the Catholics are in the right on this. Let me explain before you get worked up.
You are free to buy the wafers from outlets, or take one from the church with permission, and eat it, deface it, or do whatever you want with it. At that point it is just a cracker.
But once you *participate in their ceremony* which in their eyes blesses that wafer with some mystical properties, and you do something with that wafer other than what they intend, then you are actively violating their ceremony and their beliefs.
Pre-blessing: its just a wafer
Post-blessing, it's in their "domain"
By the way, I was raised in a half-catholic home, and we weren't allowed to take communion until we had become Official Catholics, via a few weeks of classes teaching the proper behaviors and ceremonies and such.
They don't let non-catholics handle the crackers. If you do, and you take it outside the church, that's violating their intent.
Posted by: Neural T | July 18, 2008 4:53 PM
That was a great interview. Good close, PZ.
Posted by: BobC | July 18, 2008 4:53 PM
The priest implied the student was lying about the death threats. PZ did a good job correcting the priest about that.
The priest, when he briefly talked about evolution, sounded a lot like a creationist. The priest also talked about a 'created order', which is more evidence he's an everything-is-magic creationist.
I wish he was asked 'do you agree jebus shares an ancestor with chimps?'
If he said no, then I would know he's a creationist. If he said yes, I would ask him 'why do you worship a cousin of a chimp?'
It was a friendly conversation and worth the time to listen to it. PZ again proved he's damn good and deserves to be called the most prominent atheist voice in America.
Posted by: Chris | July 18, 2008 4:57 PM
The Catholic host just kept on talking and talking, I don't see why he invited PZ Myers onto the show at all. They could have just read quotations from this site and commented on them, which is essentially what they were doing. PZ wasn't allowed to respond to much of what was said. Not much of a "debate" at all.
But I thought PZ made some excellent points. Lets hear the catholic church denounce these threats.
Posted by: SweetKevin | July 18, 2008 4:57 PM
I was pleased to find the debate fairly civilized, especially on behalf of the mediator. It makes you remember that religious people aren't necessarily the "enemy" and that we're all just human beings (sappy?). It's hard to watch/listen to debates where people are always so arrogant and just being complete idiots (VenomFangX, Kent Hovinds).
Posted by: Traffic Demon | July 18, 2008 4:58 PM
1. Amazing restraint.
2. Sign me up for a FRACKIN' CRACKER! shirt please.
3. Also a squid hat.
4. Um, he was a UCF student, not a Miami student. Stupid host.
5. I'm listening to this on a half hour of sleep after a graveyard shift. I deserve a goddamn medal. Or a hat/shirt combo pack.
Posted by: Zeekster | July 18, 2008 4:58 PM
Loved his counter to your "last point"... I know the right way, not them. I'm a real Catholic - those folks who were mean to you, not real Catholics.
Posted by: The Defenestrator | July 18, 2008 4:59 PM
I'm just starting. That guy is barely concealing his contempt for PZ. I think I'm hearing real Freudian slips here.
Posted by: manyoso | July 18, 2008 5:05 PM
Science or empirical evidence 'undergirds' transubstantiation??
PZ, why didn't you challenge him to say how??!!
I just can't imagine what on earth he is talking about.
Posted by: tsg | July 18, 2008 5:06 PM
Good so far.
Still with you.
Nope. To me, it's still just a cracker. Insisting otherwise is completely contradictory to "I have the right to not believe it."
No, they don't want non-Catholics to handle the crackers. That isn't the same as not letting them.
If their intent is that everyone treat these crackers as sacred, then I have no problem violating their intent. Their intent flies in the face of "I have the right to not believe".
Posted by: Tulse | July 18, 2008 5:07 PM
Right, in the same way that is done by the taking of communion by all those divorced Catholics, and those Catholics who are having pre-marital sex, and those Catholics who masturbate or who have other unconfessed sins.
Posted by: Beowulff | July 18, 2008 5:07 PM
I thought the funniest part was when the priest was claiming that their Eucharist is so sacred, they'd rather give it to a suspected non-believer than cause a scene... Huh?
Posted by: The Defenestrator | July 18, 2008 5:07 PM
Oh, this is funny. PZ explains why he's an atheist, and the priest guy just contradicts him and starts talking about why *he* thinks people become atheists.
Posted by: MH | July 18, 2008 5:10 PM
Ooh, I've just thought of a way of ending Crackergate and putting the Catholics in a metaphysical pickle.
Before you desecrate the wafers you've been sent, cast your own transubstantiation spell over them, in order to 'reset' the substance back to its original wheaty self. The Catholics can't say that it's impossible (because that would be an admission that they can't change its substance), and they can't ask you for evidence that the spell worked (because they can't provide evidence that, their spells work).
Alternatively, buy a packet of wafers, invite a priest over, and display the crakers next to each other, not telling him which are which. Tell the priest that he can take his bits-o-jesus away with him, but that you don't give him permission to take your crackers (which you will subsequently destroy). If he says that he can't tell which ones are Jesus, it's an admission that the consecrated wafers are identical to the un-consecrated ones. The best he can do it choose blindly, thus ending the whole debacle.
Posted by: Beowulff | July 18, 2008 5:12 PM
At The Defenestrator, #83:
Not to mention trying to lecture a scientist on what science considers evidence.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 18, 2008 5:12 PM
This was most interesting :
CRI host : who is it that's demanding that you acknowledge the real presence`[of the body of christ], and whoever they might be, what authority do they have within the catholic church ? I mean Donohue... certainly has no authority within the church to demand that anybody believe this or that, he's not even a theologian, so who is it that's demanding that you offer respect ? ... So has anybody from the catholic church that holds the authority of the magisterium come forward and said that you must acknowledge the real presence ?
PZ : That's actually a very good point, no actually there has been no official response from the catholic church and I would make a deal here that I would return these wafers to the nearest catholic church if the church could come forward and disavowe the tactics of Bill Donohue and the people who have threatened my job and my life.
You definitely scored points with that one.
Posted by: MH | July 18, 2008 5:13 PM
Beowolf #82 "I thought the funniest part was when the priest was claiming that their Eucharist is so sacred, they'd rather give it to a suspected non-believer than cause a scene... Huh?"
Yeah, it was a pretty obvious admission that the ceremony is more important to them than the cracker. D'oh!
Posted by: BlueIndependent | July 18, 2008 5:17 PM
Other than the few moments of inanity, this was a far easier and more engaging hour to listen to than that "debate" the Twin Cities Christian station had between PZ and what's-his-name.
As for the priest that commented from the Catholic perspective, I just could not help rolling my eyes about the anti-GW, anti-evolution stuff. Denialism != debate. He otherwise sounded like a perfectly nice guy. But I don't think for a second that the way he practices his faith is anything remotely close to what many other Catholics practice. Magisterium? Mystical tradition? And the old religion invented science line? Come on. And the way he described how Catholics should practice...I gotta say, as someone who grew up Catholic, his version of it sounds nothing like what I was taught. Not that I think he's being a bad one, I just don't think many people practice like he says he does. But that's beside the point.
The host of the show seemed pretty willing to keep things real and not beat about many bushes. He seemed to be a fine moderator.
Posted by: Moses | July 18, 2008 5:24 PM
Nah, mate, God only calls those he likes.
Posted by: scooter | July 18, 2008 5:24 PM
WOW PZ is a first class Catholic Mystic after all.
QUOTE MINE:
The wonderment of it ALL!!!
Transcendent Reality?
Faith is a Gift.
His understanding of how science understands the uses of Empiricism.
Real Catholicism, no true scotsmen.
A broader definition of empirical evidence.
Biblical Scholarship.
I'm losing track of the dorkiness.
That PZ character has the patience of Jobe
Catholics trashed by Wingnuts
Posted by: Mike D. | July 18, 2008 5:25 PM
that was hilarious when the Father made the distinction between Catholics and "True" Catholics--'No true Scottsman Fallacy' all the way! No wonder all religion splinters off into sects, given enough time...and science starts out fragmented and picks the pieces together
Posted by: Moses | July 18, 2008 5:25 PM
Sorry PZ, I couldn't take it. I just couldn't take it.
Posted by: andyo | July 18, 2008 5:25 PM
The host is a dumbass.
Still they don't get it.
Posted by: Itzac | July 18, 2008 5:27 PM
Why does he keep having to qualify things as "real"? "Real" Catholicism, "Real" Scholarship, "Real" Science. It sounds like a lot of special pleading and accusations of corruption of his ideals.
Well answered, btw, on the question of what science is.
Posted by: Spinoza | July 18, 2008 5:28 PM
There's just such a disproportionate level of intellect on the part of the interlocutors intellectual atheists have to deal with... (which is not to say that there aren't intellectual theists who may have to deal with dumb atheists... that may indeed happen), but it's just painful.
Masquerading arm-chair philosophy as cogent, coherent, salient argumentation is just ridiculous... a waste of time...