…and this is a 
Karl Giberson strikes back!
Category: Kooks
Posted on: July 30, 2008 10:57 PM, by PZ Myers
Perhaps you remember Karl — I ripped into an interview he did a while back. Well, "ripped into" is probably the wrong phrase — I pointed out several things I thought were quite good, and then tore up his sectarian defense of Christianity, his blind obeisance before the Christian bible, and his mangling of what other scientists have said about religion. It must have rankled — he now gripes that "Myers doesn't seem to like me" and has slapped together a nice bit of hackwork that is the lead story on Salon. And clumsy hatchet job it is.
Here's his opening:
PZ Myers is a true believer, a science crusader with the singled-minded enthusiasm of a televangelist. A biologist at the University of Minnesota at Morris and a columnist for Seed magazine, Myers has earned notoriety with his blog, Pharyngula, in which he reports on new developments in biology and indiscriminately excoriates those he views as hostile to science, a pantheon of straw men and women that includes theologians, journalists and churchgoers. He is Richard Dawkins without the fame or felicitous prose style.
Then he recounts the tale of the "Great Desecration", but without any of the context, not bothering to mention the hideous history of the Catholic response to rumors of desecration, and not even mentioning Bill Donohue's bullying tactics. Oh, and then he compares me to Jonathan Edwards, misrepresents his own interview — he only "suggested that science doesn't know everything," which "got [him] condemned to whatever hell Myers believes in" — and claims that atheists like me, Dawkins, Atkins, and Dennett are just practicing a new religion. Over and over again. He goes on at length with this strange claim that we are pushing science as a replacement for religion.
But let's assume for the moment that this is possible -- that science can be canonized, moralized, transcendentalized and politicized into a replacement religion, with followers, codes of conduct, celebrated texts and sacred blogs, houses of worship, "saints" of some sort and inquisitors of another sort. And let's suppose that it's possible for this new religion to move out of the ivory towers of academia, where it lives now, to take its place alongside the other "world" religions, attracting hundreds of millions of adherents drawn from the main streets of the world and all walks of life. What would this new religion be like once it became institutionalized? After all, if religion fills a genuine human need, something has to fill the hole created by its passing -- something that appeals to billions of people.
He babbles on quite a bit about this bizarre fantasy that we're trying to replicate the silly superstitions and rituals of his idea of religion. Sacred blogs? Saints? This is just foolishness of his own invention. Right there in the critical post I wrote, I said plainly, "Gould and Dawkins do not claim that evolution as a religion, or that it should be treated as one, and neither do I; that would be ridiculous, since if I were equating the two, that would mean I think people ought to grow out of their absurd faith in evolution." In the desecration post, I plainly said that nothing should be sacred. Giberson read those, apparently, and then decided that I really meant the opposite.
It's funny how he provides these botched descriptions of what I said, but doesn't bother to actually link to it, where it's rather obvious that his version is misleading and dishonest.
Oh, and I'm not one of the saints. Here's my role.
And we have inquisitors like Myers to ferret out heretics and martyr them on his Web site when they appear.
Man, my criticism of his ideas must have really burned, that he would now compare me to inquisitors and his own state to martyrdom. Hint to Karl: Catholic inquisitors tied people to stakes and literally set them on fire. Writing in dissent about someone's ideas does not really compare very well. I might add that historically, Christians murdered Jews by the thousands for imaginary desecrations; I tossed an unpalatable scrap of bad bread in a garbage can. Any comparisons he wants to make will not flatter religion.
In order for many of us to truly feel at home in the universe so grandly described by science, that science needs to coexist as peacefully as possible with the creation stories of our religious traditions. I share with Myers, Dawkins and Weinberg the conviction that we are the product of cosmic and biological evolution, that Einstein and Darwin got it right. But I want to believe that, through the eyes of my faith, this is how God created the world and that God cares about that world. Does this belief, shared by so many of our species, make me dangerous?
No, Karl, it makes you foolish. The eyes of your faith are delusions fostered by tradition and dogma, there is no evidence for your god or that he created anything, and there sure as heck isn't any evidence that your imaginary friend cares about us.
It also makes Salon look foolish, that they would put an article written by someone with a patent grudge front and center.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: chief | July 30, 2008 11:02 PM
off-topic
Scott Adams (Dilbert creator) thinks that both McCain and Obama may be closet atheists:
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/decisions_decisions/
Posted by: Ian | July 30, 2008 11:06 PM
Have you asked Salon for the chance to reply?
Posted by: Ric | July 30, 2008 11:07 PM
[blockquote][PZ], Dawkins, Atkins, and Dennett are just practicing a new religion.... [They] are pushing science as a replacement for religion.[/blockquote]
Oh geez. Not that hackneyed argument again. Two bad arguments in a row today. First that troll Clayton trundled out the old "atheists have no basis for morality" and now this joker rehashes the much-used "science is a religion too!" argument. Do these guys have an original thought in their head?
Posted by: semi | July 30, 2008 11:07 PM
Giberson is a tool. I read his article and can't figure out what the fuck he's talking about or what point he's trying to make. It's all one big muddle.
Science as religion? WTF?
Posted by: Ric | July 30, 2008 11:08 PM
Sorry about the crappy use of block quotes. Thought I was typing ubb code for a second.
Posted by: Chet | July 30, 2008 11:15 PM
Not appearing on Salon.com: "Calling for a student to be expelled and then murdered, as many believers did, does religion no favors."
Not ever going to appear on Salon.com, of course.
Posted by: Nick | July 30, 2008 11:17 PM
Isn't it kind of cute how the worst thing the religous types can think to do, time and time again, is to claim that we are like them? Cute or obnoxious, anyhow.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 30, 2008 11:20 PM
Man, this one has really brought the stupid oozing out of the woodwork.
Posted by: Keith B | July 30, 2008 11:20 PM
Good respond to Karl's gibberish. Why does he even have an audience?
Posted by: Kobra | July 30, 2008 11:22 PM
I want to declare this an example of Poe's Law, but Wikipedia disagrees. Shame.
Posted by: homostoicus | July 30, 2008 11:23 PM
The science-as-religion argument always amuses me and makes me think we might finally be getting somewhere because it's an argument (an invalid one) that says science is no better than religions' blind obeisance to dogma. It's an admission that religion's got nothin'.
Posted by: tintenfisch | July 30, 2008 11:24 PM
Salon suffered a huge drop in quality after the 2004 presidential election. It's like their collective spirits were broken, or something.
I second the motion that P.Z. ask for a rebuttal.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 30, 2008 11:24 PM
The religious do seem limited in defining everything within their own limited scope.
They can't see that atheism is about dispensing with religion; they choose to interpret that atheists want to replace it - apparently with science - because they can't understand that some people are (and all people should be) capable of living their lives without an entity of some sort to tell give them rules to abide by.
Posted by: Martin | July 30, 2008 11:28 PM
For my part, I will always be fond of Scalzi's pointing out that the phrase "I just wrote an article for Salon" are the seven words no writer should say if they want their career taken seriously ever again.
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 30, 2008 11:30 PM
I second the motion that P.Z. ask for a rebuttal.
Not me. It isn't worthy of a rebuttal; such FCCwittery is not just fatuous, it's self-refuting. PZ was generous in acknowledging it enough to point and laugh from his own blog.
Posted by: Ric | July 30, 2008 11:30 PM
Good point, Wowbagger @13.
It's like Sauron. He fell because he couldn't believe that someone would want to destroy the Ring. He could only envision someone taking it and using it, like he wanted to and would have done.
The religious can't conceive that some people don't think reality has anything to do with religion and don't think there need be anything to replace religion at all.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 30, 2008 11:31 PM
Grrr. After posting it, I realized I should have phrased my earlier comment (#8) differently. What I had meant to say (and maybe it comes across, I dunno, it's late here) is that the simple act of asking for a cracker to throw away and then throwing away the aforesaid cracker has brought the deluded out in full force. And what a sorry spectacle that is. It sorta reminds me of the first few months right after The God Delusion came out, and the earliest Courtier's Replies were burning up the book-review pages. Lots of us, I think, had the feeling, "This is the best they've got? Good grief and dear me, what demented fuckwits."
Giberson is busily proving, by example, that his brand of mysticism can only survive in the absence of facts.
Posted by: Narc | July 30, 2008 11:31 PM
But he wants to believe. Therefore it must be true!
Posted by: cj | July 30, 2008 11:31 PM
TO THE MYERS-IAN ATHEISTS:
IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE "NOTHING IS SACRED", WHY DO YOU MINDLESSLY BOW DOWN & WORSHIP YOUR GOD, P.Z. MYERS, EVER FOLLOWING EVERY WORD OF HIS GOSPEL?????
How many times need I remind you folks that Science itself was the result of CATHOLICS in the first place! It's interesting to note that the first scientists were all monks, they were all clerics!
So, yes, there was "assistance from the imaginary"; that is, it was the Catholic Faith of the first Scientists which were Catholic monks, clerics, and laity, that drove them to Science in the first place and inspired them to discovery and seek out the very workings of God's Creation!
The Big Bang theory that the universe originated in an extremely dense and hot space and expanded was developed by Belgian priest, Fr. George Lemaître.
People today aren't even aware of this fact!
Here are some examples of scientists who were Catholic clergy:
1. Mendel, a monk, first established the laws of heredity, which gave the final blow to the theory of natural selection.
2. Copernicus, a priest, expounded the Copernican system.
3. Steensen, a Bishop, was the father of geology.
4. Regiomontanus, a Bishop and Papal astronomer; was the father of modern astronomy.
5. Theodoric, a Bishop, discovered anesthesia in the 13th century.
6. Kircher, a priest, made the first definite statement of the germ theory of disease.
7. Cassiodorus, a priest, invented the watch.
8. Picard, a priest, was the first to measure accurately a degree of the meridian.
The conflict between evolutionary science and creationism in the United States comes from the Protestant tradition, not the Catholic one.
American Catholicism is in a Protestant culture. We borrow a lot of our attitudes, along with a lot of our hymns, and not always the best of either.
LIST OF CATHOLIC SCIENTISTS
Algue, a priest, invented the barocyclonometer, to detect approach of cyclones.
Ampere was founder of the science of electrodynamics, and investigator of the laws of electro-magnetism.
Becquerel, Antoine Cesar, was the founder of electro-chemistry.
Becquerel, Antoine Henri, was the discoverer of radio-activity.
Binet, mathematician and astronomer, set forth the principle, "Binet's Theorem."
Braille invented the Braille system for the blind.
Buffon wrote the first work on natural history.
Carrell, Nobel prize winner in medicine and physiology, is renowned for his work in surgical technique.
Caesalpinus, a Papal physician, was the first to construct a system of botany.
Cassiodorus, a priest, invented the watch.
Columbo discovered the pulmonary circulation of the blood.
Copernicus, a priest, expounded the Copernican system.
Coulomb established the fundamental laws of static electricity.
De Chauliac, a Papal physician, was the father of modern surgery and hospitals.
De Vico, a priest, discovered six comets. Descartes founded analytical geometry.
Dumas invented a method of ascertaining vapor densities.
Endlicher, botanist and historian, established a new system of classifying plants.
Eustachius, for whom the Eustachian tube was named, was one of the founders of modern anatomy.
Fabricius discovered the valvular system of the veins.
Fallopius, for whom the Fallopian tube was named, was an eminent physiologist.
Fizeau was the first to determine experimentally the velocity of light.
Foucault invented the first practical electric arc lamp; he refuted the corpuscular theory of light; he invented the gyroscope.
Fraunhofer was initiator of spectrum analysis; he established laws of diffraction.
Fresnel contributed more to the science of optics than any other man.
Galilei, a great astronomer, is the father of experimental science.
Galvani, one of the pioneers of electricity, was also an anatomist and physiologist.
Gioja, father of scientific navigation, invented the mariner's compass.
Gramme invented the Gramme dynamo.
Guttenberg invented printing.
Herzog discovered a cure for infantile paralysis.
Holland invented the first practical sub marine.
Kircher, a priest, made the first definite statement of the germ theory of disease.
Laennec invented the stethoscope.
Lancist, a Papal physician, was the father of clinical medicine.
Latreille was pioneer in entomology.
Lavoisier is called Father of Modern Chemistry.
Leverrier discovered the planet Neptune.
Lully is said to have been the first to employ chemical symbols.
Malpighi, a Papal physician, was a botanist, and the father of comparative physiology.
Marconi's place in radio is unsurpassed. Mariotte discovered Mariotte's law of gases.
Mendel, a monk, first established the laws of heredity, which gave the final blow to the theory of natural selection.
Morgagni, founder of modern pathology; made important studies in aneurisms.
Muller was the greatest biologist of the 19th century, founder of modern physiology.
Pashcal demonstrated practically that a column of air has weight.
Pasteur, called the "Father of Bacteriology," and inventor of bio-therapeutics, was the leading scientist of the 19th century.
Picard, a priest, was the first to measure accurately a degree of the meridian.
Regiomontanus, a Bishop and Papal astronomer; was the father of modern astronomy.
Scheiner, a priest, invented the pantograph, and made a telescope that permitted the first systematic investigation of sun spots.
Secchi invented the meteorograph. Steensen, a Bishop, was the father of geology.
Theodoric, a Bishop, discovered anesthesia in the 13th century.
Torricelli invented the barometer.
Vesalius was the founder of modern anatomical science.
Volta invented the first; complete galvanic battery; the "volt" is named after him.
Other scientists: Agricola, Albertus Magnus, Bacon, Bartholomeus, Bayma, Beccaria, Behalm, Bernard, Biondo, Biot, Bolzano, Borrus, Boscovitch, Bosio, Bourgeois, Branly, Caldani, Cambou, Camel, Cardan, Carnoy, Cassini, Cauchy, Cavaliere, Caxton, Champollion, Chevreul, Clavius, De Rossi, Divisch, Dulong, Dwight, Eckhel, Epee, Fabre, Fabri, Faye, Ferrari, Gassendi, Gay-Lussac, Gordon, Grimaldi, Hauy, Heis, Helmont, Hengler, Heude, Hilgard, Jussieu, Kelly, Lamarck, Laplace, Linacre, Malus, Mersenne, Monge, Muller, Murphy, Murray, Nelston, Nieuwland, Nobili, Nollet, Ortelius, Ozaman, Pelouze, Piazzi, Pitra, Plumier, Pouget, Provancher, Regnault, Riccioli, Sahagun, Santorini, Schwann, Schwarz, Secchi, Semmelweis, Spallanzani, Takamine, Tieffentaller, Toscanelli, Tulasne, Valentine, Vernier, Vieta, Da Vinci, Waldseemuller, Wincklemann, Windle, and a host of others, too many to mention.
CRACKERS RULE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: llewelly | July 30, 2008 11:34 PM
HOORAY! PZ, you realize, this means you've pushed the extreme atheist frame far enough that Dawkins is now portrayed as less extreme. Keep up the good work. Proof that you know framing and Matt Nisbett does not.Posted by: Michael G.R. | July 30, 2008 11:34 PM
Many Christians are expert at playing the victim, even when people form their sect rule pretty much everything. This is just one more case of this.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 30, 2008 11:35 PM
Did you guys hear something?
Posted by: Jose | July 30, 2008 11:39 PM
What an idiot. He doesn't even know that atheist Saints are known as "Aint's".
Posted by: Steve_C | July 30, 2008 11:39 PM
Salon is the same site that posts drivel from Chopra. I don't read Salon because it has too much woo and new age inclusive, "isn't spirituality great?" crap going on.
I doubt PZ will get to rebut the article.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 30, 2008 11:40 PM
cj,
Of course those people are considered catholics, moron; you had to say you were or they'd kill you. It shouldn't be a big shock that people preferred life over death.
Try reading something other than the church circulars from time to time. You might just avoid looking like the world-class tool your post suggests you are.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 30, 2008 11:41 PM
Gee, that rant (currently #19) looks familiar. I think I saw it copy-and-pasted into a few other cracker-related threads.
(Thinks back.)
Nope, it hasn't gotten any smarter since then.
Go ahead, pull the other one.
Posted by: Sastra | July 30, 2008 11:41 PM
Nobody is trying to turn science into a "religion." Gilbertson would have been more reasonable (and more consistent) if he had compared Christianity to Secular Humanism, which weds philosophy and ethics to an understanding of reality informed through science.
You remember philosophy and ethics, don't you? The search for Knowledge and the Good? Gilbertson seems to think they're part of religion. Actually, it's the other way around. Religion is simply philosophy and ethics as interpreted through beliefs about the supernatural. Which, if false, are probably not a good frame for either.
I read the Salon article, and once again I was struck by how the central issue of whether or not God actually exists seemed to take back stage to what is evidently the much more significant question: is religious belief really, really useful? Does it help us? What's wrong with believing there is a "rational, creative, and even caring mind" behind the natural world if it fires people up?
That is, if it fires people up just a little bit. No need to get carried away and think that this rational, creative, and caring disembodied intelligence is so really, truly, scientifically, and technically real that it tells us to do things that don't make any sense. It's not real in the sense that it explains anything about the universe.
It's real in a much more special way than the tentative scientific truths which have to be built from scratch and risk being wrong. It's real in the way that makes it impossible for US to be wrong.
So, per Gilbertson, it seems that the credo is to live like a secular humanist, but reassure yourself that God is still somewhere "behind it all" and significant in some way that doesn't have to be explained, because having faith in God is just so darn useful. It's what we do.
As therapy, perhaps. To show your sensitivity. God of the gaps is there filling the empty spaces of the heart up with sweetness, warmth, and light, so that we REALLY feel at home in a universe made for us, which loves us, and cares about us, and tell us what our ethics should be.
God evidently tells those in the know that we shouldn't be arrogant, and approach the existence of God like a science question, a phenomenom which should be consistent with our discoveries. No, God should be treated like that special kind of fact that need only be consistent with our NEEDS.
Lest we become arrogant. Of course.
I also hope that Salon offers you a chance to respond. I'm not getting my hopes up, though. The media seems to assume that articles attacking atheists are only responding to unprovoked attacks. Liberal and enlightened Salon readers enjoy their place in the Golden Middle.
God exists in a moderate way, because the Fundamentalists and atheists define the extremes -- and truth is always found in the middle. How easy.
Posted by: LisaJ | July 30, 2008 11:41 PM
Oh, I didn't realize I was supposed to be praising our Almighty Master PZ. How foolish of me, I'm so embarrassed.
I promise to serve you better, PZ, and to be the true mindless Myers-ian atheist I know I can be. I will bow down before you and live true to your word, the word of the Pharyngugospel. Praise to you, lord Myers.
Posted by: fastpathguru | July 30, 2008 11:42 PM
But I want to believe that, through the eyes of my faith, this is how God created the world and that God cares about that world.
Religion: A crutch endlessly seeking armpits in need of support.
It's like a man on crutches expressing amazement that anyone would want to walk around without them...
(I see Narc@18 beat me to the punch.)
Posted by: Geolub | July 30, 2008 11:45 PM
3. Steensen, a Bishop, was the father of geology
Steenson aka Nicholas Steno (original horizontality of strata) was not a Catholic scientist. To wit: "Steno essentially abandoned science after his conversion to Roman Catholicism in 1667, much to the dismay of some of his scientific colleagues." LINK
I always hated those tasteless crackers, the wine on the other hand...not so bad. What a boy does for his mother, or under the threat of the inquisitor.
Posted by: Ignignockt | July 30, 2008 11:46 PM
Rebuttal in Salon ^n. PZ's lack of "felicitous prose style" is almost a requirement to publish at Salon nowadays (Garrison Keillor excepted...)
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 30, 2008 11:48 PM
What could go wrong with asking Salon for rebuttal space? (I know, it sounds like a famous last question, but we're talking words here, not playing with the starter fluid or nibbling the brown acid.) The response is already written, and it'll bring some traffic this way. Put a science post up top, or even repost some of that "evil-deevil" science from the archives, and readers clicking over from Salon might even learn something.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 30, 2008 11:51 PM
A strange thing, though: I'm getting almost no traffic from Salon. Not even a hint of a bump.
Maybe in the morning, but so far it's almost as if nobody reads Salon. I got more volume from the Catholic League.
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 30, 2008 11:51 PM
God exists in a moderate way, because the Fundamentalists and atheists define the extremes -- and truth is always found in the middle. How easy.
Exactly, Sastra. It's all about the facile equivalence. "Why, he's no better than I am--wait! what I meant to say was..."
Posted by: Amplexus | July 30, 2008 11:51 PM
What is this stupid shit about "science as a religion"? I thought that it grew out of the Dover trial where it was said the religion was illegal to teach in the science classroom. The creationist tried to drive their most insipid wedge to drive science out of schools just because it makes claims about reality.
Any time some scientist tries to explain science in a poetic or narrative style suddenly he's accused of writing creation myths.
I really, really wanted to at least delude myself into being a deist, but with Gilbertson I see no virtue in faith at all.
Posted by: melior | July 30, 2008 11:52 PM
Bah, I don't have time to waste on the whole Salon "Site Pass" nonsense where they try to make you watch a commercial. Pity they can't seem to track how many readers they lose from such foolishness.
Sounds like you struck a nerve though. "I want to believe," Karl says, and who can doubt him? He's now taken to loudly complaining about how hard it is for him to continue believing in nonsense when you keep pointing out that he's doing it.
"[S]cience needs to coexist as peacefully as possible with the creation stories of our religious traditions" must be very close to what Galileo's friends once whispered in his ear.
Posted by: Jose | July 30, 2008 11:53 PM
It's interesting to note that the first scientists were all monks, they were all clerics!
Which is it, monks or clerics? That is one good sentence.
Posted by: E.V. | July 30, 2008 11:55 PM
#28
Were you trying to be snarky, funny, or are you into self humiliation? Shoooooweeeee! Somebody please light a match.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 30, 2008 11:55 PM
I'd argue against cj #19 but I suspect he's a Poe. I mean no one would actually use Galileo Galilei as an example FOR Catholicism's contributions to science!!!
Posted by: SteveC | July 30, 2008 11:55 PM
#2: "Have you asked Salon for the chance to reply?"
Why would PZ want to post on a second rate site like Salon when he can post on Pharyngula anytime he wants?
Posted by: Phineas | July 30, 2008 11:59 PM
Seriously, not mentioning the context for CrackerGate nearly takes the whole article into "not even wrong" territory.
The comments are even worse, in a way. What does PZ's (or anyone's, for that matter) publication record have to do with anything? Like there's some sort of secret scientist council that has a guideline "you have to publish 6 articles a year to be considered successful." As if where PZ teaches has any impact on whether his point is correct or not.
Man, that is some annoying, stupid bullshit.
Posted by: bad Jim | July 31, 2008 12:00 AM
I agree that Myers ought to submit a response to Salon. There are some good people writing there, Glenn Grenwald and Juan Cole for two, and the article cries out for rebuttal.
There is a germ of sense to be found within its vast clouds of fantastical nonsense. We do, generally, claim to find emotional and intellectual satisfaction in a purely scientific understanding of the universe. As Darwin said in the closing words of The Origin, "There is grandeur in this view of life." It would seem, unfortunately, that this is not enough for the religious; they need to have God in there too.
(also: Sastra, awesome comment, as usual)
Posted by: LisaJ | July 31, 2008 12:01 AM
By the way PZ, I saw your review today in Nature about Kenneth Miller's 'Only a Theory' book. Very nicely written. Great summary of the topic in the first paragraph there, in your 'tell the stupid like it is' style. I enjoyed that. Very thoughtfuly critiqued too - nice job.
Posted by: Phineas | July 31, 2008 12:01 AM
@ Jose, #37:
I think it's clerics. Clerics get +1 to science rolls and a bonus skill.
Posted by: LisaJ | July 31, 2008 12:04 AM
#38, I was responding to CJ's post at #19
Posted by: Rob | July 31, 2008 12:04 AM
Hey CJ, you forgot one very important one.
Darwin went to seminary school to be a priest.
See, people grow up.
Posted by: SteveC | July 31, 2008 12:05 AM
"A strange thing, though: I'm getting almost no traffic from Salon. Not even a hint of a bump." -- PZ
I bet Salon is seeing a bump from the mighty Pharygula though. Shoulda linked to the google cache to spare their servers. :)
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 31, 2008 12:05 AM
It also makes Salon look foolish...
What's foolish about trying to boost your ad-view numbers with that famous Pharyngula Spike™?
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 31, 2008 12:14 AM
19#--
One can acknowledge a historic debt to individual Catholics but that has absolutely nothing to do with the veracity of specific Catholic supernatural claims.
I think the pyramids at Giza are an amazing testament to human achievement but I don't consequently feel the slightest bit more inclined to worship the Egyptian gods.
Those people you listed made important contributions to science and it is in that role that they are honored. God is still a literary character.
Posted by: Thasyboulos | July 31, 2008 12:24 AM
If science is a religion, the word "evidence" has become meaningless.
Posted by: wade | July 31, 2008 12:25 AM
I don't understand how these people can talk shit about science and in the same breath compare it to their religion. Thats enough irony to choke a horse.
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2008 12:25 AM
Lisa J.
Sorry. I missed that. Perhaps you can reference the commenter # when you parody. No real harm intended.
Carry on....
Posted by: Lucas | July 31, 2008 12:26 AM
Two important statesmen who loathed religion and loved science, Hitler and Mussolini, were also sensible enough not to share the audacious faith in democracy, which was coming up at that time.
Posted by: anne | July 31, 2008 12:28 AM
Years ago, when salon.com was very new, it had some really great cutting edge writers and published good hard-hitting articles.
It hasn't been worth visiting for a long time, sadly. The article by Gibbering Fool is a case in point.
Posted by: John Morales | July 31, 2008 12:28 AM
Bah. Salon and their "site pass".
And, OOT, today I went to the Bad Astronomy site (I usually follow it on RSS) and was dismayed to see a video load and play, plus umpteen zillion scripts and adverts - I didn't even wait for it to load before closing the tab.
Kudos to ScienceBlogs, pox on Discover Magazine.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 31, 2008 12:30 AM
I wrote in another post that, as in many of the cases cj listed, all learning was controlled by the church. If you wanted to learn anything you had to sign up.
Plus it meant that you had the church's protection from being burned as a witch if you did something the local peasantry suspected was he work of the devil.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 31, 2008 12:31 AM
Lucas (#53):
Stop right there. What part of "Gott mitt uns" is so hard to understand?
Posted by: Todd | July 31, 2008 12:34 AM
Salon is still operational? I'll be damned.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 31, 2008 12:36 AM
Amplexus (#35):
And when a scientist tries to speak plainly, she's accused of "bad framing". Damned if you do. . . .
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 31, 2008 12:37 AM
I have never seen such a thoroughly whipped straw man, before. He really kicked its ass.
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 31, 2008 12:39 AM
Lucas,
Tired, boring old argument.
Does your God exist or not? Can we be moral without embracing supernaturalism or not?
Those are the relevant issues, not the religious views of dead dicators.
Posted by: LisaJ | July 31, 2008 12:43 AM
No problem EV. Sorry for the confusion and lack of referencing. I'll remember to do that next time!
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2008 12:49 AM
Those are the relevant issues, not the religious views of dead dicators.
"For want of a T..."
Posted by: Lucas | July 31, 2008 12:50 AM
Morality itself, just like religion, has nothing to with science. Anyone who believes in "Thou shalt not kill" is as zealous as a martyr who commits a suicide attack.
Posted by: Nobody | July 31, 2008 12:55 AM
Hm. Little Paul Zachary called out for what he is, a Prophet of the New Fundie Church of Atheism. . .and here he is complaining about it.
Imagine that.
Posted by: Lucas | July 31, 2008 12:55 AM
Hail science: http://www.leradiodisophie.it/Download/Marconi-Mussolini.pdf
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2008 12:55 AM
Lucas: You lose. Just because I also believe"Thou shalt not kill", doesn't mean I won't.
Posted by: Rol | July 31, 2008 12:56 AM
Wow, just wow.
First theists say, "Science makes ATHEISTS out of people! Atheists have nothing to live for! To them, there is no beauty, no love, no joy, no happiness!!!"
Then atheists say, "No, it isn't like that at all. Science (by definition) is the only thing that brings us truth and knowledge of this grand, beautiful universe, and makes us appreciate it."
Then theists say, "OMG, look at his ROMANTIC language, that isn't bleak objectivity/materialism at all!! They are replacing religion with SCIENCE because science IS their religion!!"
The atheists then collectively sigh.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | July 31, 2008 12:58 AM
I'm really loving this new meme that started on other Scienceblogs (hint -- look for the ones by authors who are say they are ashamed to be on the same blog network as PZ but don't have the balls to leave) and has now spread to Salon, that any of us who dare to post in support of PZ on any issue are just "minions" who are "worshipping" him as a "saint."
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2008 12:59 AM
Did any hear the sound of nothing? Of course not; no sound is made if Nobody's there.
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 31, 2008 12:59 AM
#64--
"Morality itself, just like religion, has nothing to [do] with science."
That's not true. Religion makes scientific claims, like "prayer is effective, we know how and who created the universe, Jesus was the son of a virgin" etc. These are all claims that trespass into science and don't add up. A claim is either substantiated with evidence or it isn't. Religion can't wiggle out of that.
"Anyone who believes in "Thou shalt not kill" is as zealous as a martyr who commits a suicide attack."
I'm not sure I understand this part.
Posted by: boattruckboat | July 31, 2008 1:01 AM
Giberson used the phrase "waxed eloquent" in his latest Salon piece. (referring to the speaking skills of some guy who lived long ago)
"waxed"
"eloquent"
Has Salon turned into a 1997 high school newspaper? Hell, while you are at it, Giberson, why don't you tell us how "rad" he is... or how "fly" he is... or how "dope" he be.
Now, where is my boattruckboat?
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 31, 2008 1:04 AM
By the way, who says morality has nothing to do with science? Science is concerned with investigating reality. Suffering is part of reality and morality should be about eliminating needless suffering. Science can be in the business of aiding morality.
And #65, Nobody, in what sense are we a church? We don't worship anything or accept any extraordinary claims on faith. Maybe you just can't stand the fact that there are plenty of us who get by just fine without believing in nonsense like God?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 31, 2008 1:05 AM
Lucas,
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.
The preference for truth over falsehood has no moral character to it?
For a completely meaningless definition of "zealous", yes, you could say that. You could also say, with equal justice, that anyone who decides to get stoned and watch Avatar all day is as zealous as a suicide bomber.
Posted by: Rayven Alandria | July 31, 2008 1:07 AM
I was going to write letter in response to Giberson's nauseating rant, but you have to make an account at Salon to post. I have no desire to make an account at such a pathetic site.
Posted by: Patricia | July 31, 2008 1:07 AM
The stupidity is so vast I feel like I'm at Helm's Deep.
Posted by: Lucas | July 31, 2008 1:10 AM
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
http://www.baycrest.org/spring%202002/article4.htm
Posted by: deadman_932 | July 31, 2008 1:13 AM
The editor of Salon is Joan Walsh. The online magazine's headquarters are located near San Francisco. The irony is below.
Karl Giberson is a member of the Church of the Nazarene, which is a Methodist spin-off in the Arminian tradition.
Interestingly for Salon (with its seemingly liberal bent), The Nazarenes not only adhere to notions of the Triune God, the divinity of Jesus, and the actuality of "Original Sin" (Karl, you actually *buy* that latter nonsense!?!) BUT ALSO official Nazarene Church doctrine is that homosexuality is both sinful and contrary to the Holy Scriptures (whoops). http://www.nazarene.org/ministries/superintendents/statements/sexuality/display.aspx
------------------------------------
Karl Giberson, if you bother to read any of these posts, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Sucking up to the Templeton Foundation and using poison-the-well tactics is bad enough, but the half-truths and omissions of truth you had to make about PZ's critique of your blather AND about what actually led to Crackergate... well, I guess you just **had** to do that to make your puff-piece easier to swallow.
Feel free to go to one of the many sites devoted to debating these issues and let folks here know where you decide to post. I'd love to see you defend yourself in writing, but *honestly* , this time.
Posted by: Lucas | July 31, 2008 1:13 AM
"The preference for truth over falsehood has no moral character to it?"
Keep praying.
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 31, 2008 1:15 AM
Okay, Lucas, by blatant trolling, you've lost the debate by forfeit. Next time come with a coherent argument.
Are there any non-troll theists who wish to have a real debate? Maybe it's pointless to ask.
Posted by: Atheist Boogeyman | July 31, 2008 1:16 AM
Cj,
1) The scientific method's origins -- if I recall -- stem from ancient Greece, Egypt and the early Islamic World. The Catholics were the johnny-come-latelys when it comes to scientific inquiry and have done more to supress science than promote it -- though I hear that has started to change a little these days in some isolated cases.
2) The fact there are a bunch of catholic scientists proves absolutely dick about anything. There are lots of protestant scientists, gay scientists, muslim scientists, atheist scientists ... and probably even some wiccan scientists and scientologist scientists out there too. So what. Science is not religious... Unless you're an ancient greek or something, you don't get the credit for inventing science and the idea that a bunch of scientists shared your dark age reasoning is just meaningless.
3) The only reason the clergy and not many others engaged in scientific inquiry in the middle ages was because they were the only ones with the time and resources to do so at the time while the church kept everyone else illiterate and living in shit as serfs. Read a history book.
4) I take issue with some of the scientists on your list.. some of the "inventions" seem more than questionable given research and technology that came before them.. but it would take me too long to debunk them all so I'll leave it at that.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 31, 2008 1:17 AM
The Adamant Atheist (#80):
Pointless? Probably.
Posted by: Susan | July 31, 2008 1:21 AM
Man. Somebody wasn't paying attention during the whole Expelled kerfluffle! I thought that proved once and for all that PZ is more famous than Dawkins?!
I joined Salon just so I could read Glenn Greenwald every day without the ads, and he is worth every penny. The good thing about reading articles there is that you can post comments after them, and I think I'll go do that right now.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 31, 2008 1:23 AM
I would gather that science can show that a culture which favours morality will do better than one that doesn't; likewise, science (demographics) can show that the US prison system has far more religious believers than atheists in its population.
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 31, 2008 1:23 AM
That makes at least two of you.