Pharyngula

Posted by: CrypticLife | July 14, 2008 4:13 PM

"It won't be gross. It won't be totally tasteless, but yeah, I'll do something that shows this cracker has no power. This cracker is nothing."

Oh, it will be tasteless. But I guess you've already said you're not going to eat it.

But the question is, will it rise to the level of offense that Webster Cook gave, and involve simply not eating it and keeping it safe in a plastic baggie? Oh, the horror!

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 14, 2008 4:15 PM

You're kind of stuck, aren't you? What you wrote was obviously satirical hyperbole, but then you asked for the crackers. And no doubt they were sent.

You'll look petty if you stomp it, or smear it with something horrible. And you'll look weak if you do nothing.

Well, do something that shows it to be the meaningless wheat product that it is, but make it into art (or cartoon, maybe) of some kind. Let it be the weak insipid thing that it is, and keep your dignity.

Which, I presume, is your plan.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: anon | July 14, 2008 4:17 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2636111822344880682

Posted by: Holbach | July 14, 2008 4:22 PM

Oh brother, you've fallen from grace, at least in the eyes of some catholics and the conservative catholic league? You know what they can do with their ghostly grace and concern. As far as I'm concerned, you won't lose support from rational fellow atheists who do not give a crap what religious morons pander about on these matters. I don't give a rat's ass on any concern of theirs whether it applies to insane needs or concern over our rational lives. Grace? Spare us the demented wording for your need to save our shoe soles. Morons.

Posted by: Brian Coughlan | July 14, 2008 4:26 PM

A little something to snack on ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRMT7p9fyIQ

Posted by: wistah | July 14, 2008 4:31 PM

Check out the first comment over there, from ol' Swiftee. What a jackass.

Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that Swiftee went to "collage."

Posted by: Sili | July 14, 2008 4:35 PM

Well ... technically isn't the IDiots who're science-heathen?

PeeZed is more of a heathen scientist.

Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | July 14, 2008 4:38 PM

Good article. I'm looking forward to the impending cracker desecration.
BTW, shouldn't the article have said "desperate ploy" instead of "disparate ploy"?

Posted by: Vaal | July 14, 2008 4:39 PM

Maybe you should have the crackers with cheese. After all, didn't Jesus say "Blessed are the cheesemakers"

Posted by: BobC | July 14, 2008 4:41 PM

"One of the more prominent atheist voices in America"

PZ is the MOST prominent atheist voice in America. Nobody else comes close.

Posted by: arensb | July 14, 2008 4:45 PM

I suggest putting the wafer in a jam jar. With holes punched in the lid, of course, so Jesus can breathe. And a lettuce leaf.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 14, 2008 4:48 PM

Sorry for the double cross posting, but I think this belongs in here:

(quoted material was written by Blake Stacey)

One of the many, many weird things about this Eucharist business is that people seem to think Jesus couldn't absent himself from a compromising situation. Why can't the Creator of the Universe do what any hack writer for a supermarket tabloid can do: you know, "Our reporter made his excuses and left"? This whole affair implies that once a human being has said the proper mumbo-jumbo, the Creator of the Universe is trapped, trapped, inside a bit of snack food.

This is pretty much my own argument that the desecration of the host is impossible. Or more formally:

1 ) Pretend, for the sake of argument, that God exists
1a) God is defined as being perfect
1b) God is defined as being omnipotent
1c) God is defined as being omniscient
1d) God is defined as being benevolent (note: Catholicism apparently does not consider God to be omnibenevolent, from what I can recall on the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Hell)

2 ) Pretend, for the sake of argument, that Catholicism is true.
2a) Catholicism is the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

3 ) Pretend, for the sake of argument, the the Eucharist is real
3a) The ritual of the Eucharist is that a priest consecrates the wafers and wine and God transubstantiates into them.

4 ) Now, what is a priest? A priest is a man; a weak, imperfect, sinner like all men, who has been ordained by the Church, which was established by God. Thus, the priest receives any authority he has from God, ultimately.

5 ) Given that the priest receives his authority from God, and is clearly far weaker than God anyway, it cannot be the case that the priest can in any way compel God to do anything. The inferior cannot give orders to the superior, nor can the weaker compel the stronger.

6 ) Therefore, the ritual of consecration cannot be compelling God to transubstantiate, but must rather be inviting God to transubstantiate.

7 ) Any invitation can, of course, be refused, if acceding to the invitation would be improper.

8 ) It is a tenet of Catholicism that it is improper for those who do not have faith in Catholicism should not partake of the host. This includes the point that the host should be consumed immediately.

9 ) God, being omniscient, knows all things, including the hearts of humans.

10 ) Therefore, God knows who does and does not have faith in Catholicism.

11 ) God, being omniscient, knows all things, including the future and the past

12 ) Therefore, God knows exactly who will receive which wafer that is has the ritual of consecration performed over it.

13 ) God, being perfect and benevolent, would never do anything that is improper.

14 ) Therefore, since it would be improper to transubstantiate into a wafer which God knows will be received by someone who does not have faith in Catholicism, God can, and indeed, must, refuse to transubstantiate into those wafers which will be received by those who do not have faith in Catholicism.

15 ) Therefore, it is impossible to desecrate a host, since all wafers that will be taken with the intent to desecrate will not have had God transubstantiate into them, and therefore will not be hosts.

16 ) Therefore, Cook did not receive a wafer into which God had transubstantiated. God simply refused to do so, since God, being omniscient, knew of Cook's intent to not consume the host immediately.

17 ) Therefore, should someone sneak a wafer from out of a communion ceremony, and convey it to PZ Myers (atheist), God will know of the intent to begin with, and will not transubstantiate into that wafer.

18 ) Therefore, PZ Myers, according to plain and obvious theologic, will not be desecrating the host, but will instead be simply abusing a goddamn fracking cracker.

QED.

Mmm. Syllogilicious. I coulda been a theologian...

Posted by: Dustin is an unrepentant science heathen. | July 14, 2008 4:50 PM

If they're attempting to engage in polemics they should take more care to ensure that they aren't paying you a compliment.

Also, post #21 can be reduced to pure win.

Posted by: bunnycatch3r | July 14, 2008 4:50 PM

PZ is like a modern day Martin Luther.

Posted by: JimS | July 14, 2008 4:51 PM

Per Jeph at #14, but going beyond it a bit:
Get samples of different strains of E. coli and test how they do on the crackers. Maybe Lenksi can loan you some.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 14, 2008 4:53 PM

Owlmirror (#23):

Excellent theologic. Truly art thou versed in the ways of the platosphere.

Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | July 14, 2008 4:56 PM

Thou shall toast the face of Jesus unto it.

Posted by: rob | July 14, 2008 5:00 PM

you should take all the wafers you get and create a piece of art, like kids do with macaroni. cracker art!

i think the Darwin fish would be a great subject for the cracker art.

Posted by: Todd | July 14, 2008 5:01 PM

PZ is the MOST prominent atheist voice in America. Nobody else comes close.

Christopher Hitchens is now an American citizen, so I'd suggest he's the most prominent one. Not necessarily the best one, but certainly the most prominent. PZ doesn't make me grimace as much.

My vote for cracker desecration would be to eat it with a slice of beef carpaccio on a Friday during Lent. If we're going to desecrate it, might as well throw in a few more blasphemies. Also, it would be cool if a few volunteers could get excommunicated during the "ceremony" in question.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 14, 2008 5:02 PM

PZ is like a modern day Martin Luther. - bunnycatch3r

OK, we're used to insults and obscenities being thrown around here on Pharyngula, and PZ has a pretty thick skin, but this is just going too far!

Posted by: Frank Mitchell | July 14, 2008 5:08 PM

Here's an idea:

1. Take a consecrated host and two unconsecrated hosts.

2. Put Dixie cups or something similar on top of the hosts, and mix them up as if you were running a shell game. Cut away so that nobody will have a clue as to which cup has the consecrated host.

3. Select one host, and do something "sacreligious" to it, e.g. stab a knife into it, dissolve it in a glass of water and pour it down the drain, etc.

4. Ask the viewer whether you've actually committed sacrilege or not.

Posted by: Tim H | July 14, 2008 5:13 PM

I've looked some of this stuff up, (yes, it's made my brain hurt to do it), but I think I understand why the RCC would say #23 above doesn't work. Basically, god is working through the priest to do the change. In fact, since Jesus did the original change, the priest is (in some way I don't follow)Jesus for the duration of the ceremony. Since the priest really can't tell the difference between a changed and an unchanged cracker, you can't have selective change. (The real reason for the doctrine is that since the priest would be clueless, selective change would undermine the authority of the priesthood, which is the real purpose for the existance of the RCC.)
The ironic part of the whole mess is that there's a 95% chance the whole thing never happened in the first place. Blood and human flesh are as un-kosher as you can get. Jesus and his disciples would never have even conceived of doing this, even symbolically. It was, however, a common part of both the Dionysus cult and Mithraism, both of which pre-dated Christianity and were popular 2000 years ago. The ceremony was probably imported by Paul (who was the greatist heretic in the history of Christianity.)

Posted by: AJ Milne | July 14, 2008 5:14 PM

'Unrepentant science heathen' strikes me as being most button-worthy. It'll prolly need to be a biggish button, tho'. Or small type.

Re the thelogic in 23, while it strikes me as sound, let us also recall that this is a deity with some... err.. quirks. We must also, therefore, account for the possibility the god may intend to be hilariously mistreated at the hands of a heathen just so the cracker can raise itself from the dead three days later... Or, possibly, there are additional exceptions to this whole omniscience/omnipotence thing--and the cracker is actually just mostly omnipotent (see also The Princess Bride, re 'mostly dead, various sources re 'a little pregnant')... As in, possibly, if PZ secures his cracker while in an iron chariot, for example, the otherwise all-knowing cracker will be unaware of his intentions and unable to stop him... Tho' I've no idea where you rent an iron chariot near Morris, and riding one into a church is decidely not subtle... so it may be moot.

Yeah, now regarding this former case, this whole bein' mocked for the sake of the world as a necessary thing to have done, I know, it seems... odd. But if we're to believe the accounts we're given, deities are weird that way.

Anyway, in that scenario, we should still rebuke these overly zealous types who are trying to prevent this necessary sacrifice to redeem all of humankind from the sin of excessive consumption of baked, starchy footstuffs. There all freakin' out, trying to cut folks' ears off, and the cracker's just sitting there thinkin': oh, c'mon, ya losers, stop standing in the way of this thing, let's get on with it... gotta get down to hell and back by Tuesday, at least... I've plans for the weekend.'

Posted by: JoJo | July 14, 2008 5:16 PM

I coulda been a theologian...

For a mere $29.99, you can get a degree from the Universal Life Church as a Doctor of Divinity. Post #23 easily qualifies as your dissertation.

Posted by: E.V. | July 14, 2008 5:20 PM

For the headline to be any more priceless, "heathen" needs an r. The Southern epithet of "heathern" sounds so much more enlightened.
The Minnesota Independent can't be accused of blatant bias, they're not "liberal media". Think the headline editor is a woo monger?

Posted by: Kenny P | July 14, 2008 5:21 PM

PZ, you're a scientist. I think you should feed the consecrated cracker to some lab rats.

OR - Feed the consecrated cracker to a parrot, but first teach the parrot to say, "Bless me father, for I have sinned" or "Polly wants a consecrated cracker!"

I do think it is amazing that so many people are going crackers over your cracker comments, but at the same time they want you to disrespect the Muslim faith.

Posted by: RAM | July 14, 2008 5:22 PM

I applaud PZ in hi-lighting these and other silly beliefs.
These type questions threaten the power structure of those who depend on the donations of the flock they fleece. To maintain their power base, religious leaders keep people worrying about their eternal sins, and continue making earthly joy and happiness of life a sin, requiring them to pray for forgiveness, and of course, pay into the chuch fund to maintain their lifestyles.
I couldn't say it better than the great Robert G. Ingersoll, Myth and Miracle., 1885,

"Happiness is the result of all that is really right and sane.
But there are many people who regard the desire to he happy as a very low and degrading ambition. These people call themselves spiritual. They pretend to care nothing for the pleasures of "sense." They hold this world, this life, in contempt. They do not want happiness in this world -- but in another. Here, happiness degrades -- there, it purifies and ennobles.
These spiritual people have been known as prophets, apostles, augurs, hermits, monks, priests, popes, bishops and parsons. They are devout and useless. They do not cultivate the soil. They produce nothing. They live on the labor of others. They are pious and parasitic. They pray for others, if the others will work for them. They claim to have been selected by the Infinite to instruct and govern mankind. They are "meek" and arrogant, "long-suffering" and revengeful.
They ever have been, now are, and always will be the enemies of liberty, of investigation and science. They are believers in the supernatural, the miraculous and the absurd. They have filled the world with hatred, bigotry and fear. In defence of their creeds they have committed every crime and practiced every cruelty."

Posted by: Shaden Freud | July 14, 2008 5:25 PM

Vaal @ 17 wrote:

Maybe you should have the crackers with cheese. After all, didn't Jesus say "Blessed are the cheesemakers"

Well, obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

Posted by: Capital Dan | July 14, 2008 5:27 PM

No, I am not "stuck". I've been intending something along these lines for a few months now. This was actually a good opportunity for something that is already written.

Posted by: PZ Myers

I'll buy you a bottle of something if you can drive your "hostage" into Stockholm Syndrome. And don't go half-way, man. I want to see this cracker wearing an SLA t-shirt and using an AK-47 to hold up a bank.

Posted by: Bunk | July 14, 2008 5:30 PM

I leave for a week to go to the beach and come back to find out that the entire Catholic world is planning on burning PZ at the stake because of a cracker? Why isn't this on Fox news? Has the Catholic league seen this video: "Louis CK learns about the Catholic Church." NSFW, especially if you teach in a Catholic school.

Posted by: mayhempix | July 14, 2008 5:36 PM

Repent PZ! Repent!

Repent before the Flying Spaghetti Monster douses you in cheap canned sauce and commits you to an eternity of mushy tasteless meatballs and stale communion crackers!

Posted by: John Robie | July 14, 2008 5:37 PM

I know PZ promised to do something sacrilicious with the jesus cracker (maple syrup, perhaps), but assuming he gets more than one, I think at least one should be plasticized and carried in his pocket at all times so that when Christians ask him about finding Jesus, he show them that he already has.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 14, 2008 5:40 PM

John Robie (#63):

But then he runs the risk of losing his faith in between the couch cushions.

Posted by: Jeff Schmidt | July 14, 2008 5:43 PM

As already pointed out, ANYTHING PZ did to the wafer would be, by the Catholic Church's definition, sacrilege. He could merely waggle it around in front of a camera and these nutters would equate it to kidnapping and molestation.

PZ's got access to a biology lab. With a "consecrated" cracker, he has access to (allegedly) Jesus' flesh. Do the math. Research opportunities abound.

Posted by: Ron Hager | July 14, 2008 5:44 PM

I would like to apply for the title of Apprentice Science Heathen.

Posted by: Holbach | July 14, 2008 5:49 PM

Wolfhound @ 62 My apologies. I only read the first post by "tjswift" and not the following ones. I almost succumbed to parodied parody! Carry on!

Posted by: E.V. | July 14, 2008 5:51 PM

Blake:
"John Robie (#63):
But then he runs the risk of losing his faith in between the couch cushions."
But think how effortless it will be to regain his faith. And a little loose change too.

Posted by: thalarctos | July 14, 2008 5:52 PM

I mean, what would a priest do if he accidentally dropped a cup of them while walking across the stable?

Five-second rule?

Posted by: Ernst Hot | July 14, 2008 5:53 PM

Hihi.

tjswift
Posted jul 14 2008 03:01pm with -NaN votes

tjswift is so unpopular that numbers fail to describe it!

Posted by: foxfire | July 14, 2008 6:00 PM

Well, PZ, since you are not planning on doing anything disgusting...: if you had 2 crackers, you could dress them up as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Posted by: E.V. | July 14, 2008 6:09 PM

"It probably won't soothe the inflamed mob."

Perhaps you should send cases of Preparation H to all the Parishes...

Posted by: Jonathan Rothwell | July 14, 2008 6:18 PM

Whoops... didn't check my HTML properly there...

The image was claimed by Captain Birdseye to be of one of PZ's peers reviewing his work. Yeah, right. Is he part of the Disney Channel's target audience (flatulent schoolchildren between the ages of five and eight)?

Posted by: Mikkle | July 14, 2008 6:23 PM

Oooo! Can We Haz 'Unrepent Scienz-hethen' t-shirtz plez?!

Posted by: Capital Dan | July 14, 2008 6:34 PM

Suggestion: Refuse to eat it, store it prominantly, and draw a picture of mohammed on it. Stick figure preferred.

Posted by: Sean

Yowza! I suppose you could feed it to a dog then and really watch the fur fly.

Posted by: Judi | July 14, 2008 6:37 PM

I am one of those stupid Catholics who believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I understand you think we are stupid. I understand you think. . .well. . .you just think we are stupid, period. That's it really, in a nutshell, as far as I can tell. It wouldn't be the first time an athiest thought a Christian was stupid. This happens a lot. It also wouldn't be the first time Jesus was treated badly by unbelievers. So this is really very predictable actually. Since I know I can't sound any more empty-headed to you than I already do, I'll go ahead and tell you that a lot of people are praying for you. Can you just let that roll off your shoulders like water off a duck's back please? What do you expect Christian's to do. . .praying for lost souls is our business. I'm sure I'll get some response about the Iquisition, the Crusades, or the priest scandal now. . .

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 14, 2008 6:42 PM

Glen, honey, all your efforts at stage-managing this might go better if you noted that if PZ did eat the cracker, that would be sacrilege.

Ron, dumbass, I have already noted that. But you're busy being stupid and self-righteous.

If he snapped it in two on-mike to see whether it cracks--which I'd take as pretty much the first criterion for crackeriness--that would be sacrilege. If he dissected it, that would be sacrilege. If he licked it and stuck it on his forehead, that would be sacrilege. (Why yes, I've seen it done. By an altarboy. Evidently it's not that hard to palm he leftovers.) If he dunked it in Nutella, etc.

Yeah, whatever, prattle on with your inanities. You're too stupid to recognize what the issue is.

For the unretarded, this by PZ is what concerned anyone who wants atheism not to look puerile and tasteless:

but will instead treat it with profound disrespect

If it's satirical hyperbole, fine. Except that PZ didn't disavow or refine the statement until this refinement:

It won't be gross. It won't be totally tasteless, but yeah, I'll do something that shows this cracker has no power.

Which is why I said that it was presumably his plan to exhibit its meaningless and insipidity. I did mean to try to reinforce the later refinement, and only a tard would see that as "stage-managing".

But you're intent on attacking a strawman, so enough said.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7