Pharyngula

Posted by: Bryan | July 24, 2008 3:12 PM

Yaaaay!!! We've moved on.

Posted by: Michelle | July 24, 2008 3:23 PM

Goddamnit why are the cool people never coming to my lame canadian province?!

Posted by: Tripmaster Monkey | July 24, 2008 3:28 PM

PZ, I think Bryan means we've move on from the whole "Crackergate" issue.

Speaking of which, there's a troll by the name of "John" in the "Great Desecration" thread that insists on repeatedly posting Pope John Paul II's "Ecclesia de Eucharistia". As each post takes up approximately 45 screens, they're proving to be rather effective speed bumps in the thread. Anything you can do?

Posted by: Bryan | July 24, 2008 3:30 PM

Is this The Rapture?

Posted by: Dave | July 24, 2008 3:42 PM

Just saw Roy 2 nights ago at a house concert in PA. Got to speak w/him as well. He not only very talented but a very nice guy as well. Now I understand why he thanked you inside his new CD I bought. Thanks PZ!

Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 24, 2008 3:48 PM

I like his lyrics, but I'm just not a fan of the music or his singing.

Sadly, just reading the lyrics isn't good enough because you lose out on the timing and delivery.

Ah, I'm just bitter that he'd probably never come to the creepy Conservative Texas town I'm currently in.

Posted by: blf | July 24, 2008 3:52 PM

Thanks, Pee Zed, for trying to deal with St John of The Copy Paste and Annoy sect.

That Roy song has been one of my favourites since I found it on YouTube a few weeks(?) ago. So when is Roy going to tour the civilized world? sighs...

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 24, 2008 4:00 PM

Here's some interesting news, which I hope will assist in moving beyond The Incident:

Scientists at Harvard University and the University of Texas at Austin have found that genetic evolution is strongly shaped by genes' efforts to prevent or tolerate errors in protein production.

Their study also suggests that the cost of errors in protein production may lie in the malformed proteins themselves, rather than the loss of functional proteins. Misfolded proteins can build up in long-lived cells, like neurons, and cause neurodegenerative diseases.

The work, by D. Allan Drummond at Harvard and Claus O. Wilke at Texas, is described in the July 25 issue of the journal Cell.

"It has long been believed that the main force of natural selection on protein-coding genes is the need to maintain a working protein," says Drummond, a Bauer Fellow in Harvard's FAS Center for Systems Biology. "Our work suggests that another force may be equally important: the need to avoid misfolded proteins resulting from errors in translation."

Protein molecules must fold to become biologically active, and mistakes can cause misfolding, which can be toxic. Yet the protein-producing factories in our cells are estimated to make mistakes in 20 percent of the molecules they produce. Adaptations to this surprising sloppiness may be crucial in understanding the evolution of genes across species, from bacteria to humans, say Drummond and Wilke.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724123220.htm

I don't think there's any surprise that codons are selected to prevent misfolding. That it's such a strong effect may be news, however.

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

Posted by: scotth | July 24, 2008 4:04 PM

Roy performed for us in Alrington, TX. It was a night a of great entertainment. Not only was Roy great, the unsuspecting bar patrons that weren't there to seem him, were entertaining as well.

(dissing Bush in a bar in TX is a dangerous thing)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/scott_hurst/sets/72157605054379234/

Posted by: JoeBlu | July 24, 2008 4:10 PM

Don't play innocent with us! We know it's all those atheists flocking here to be outraged after you threw the God Delusion in the garbage!

Posted by: Doubting Foo | July 24, 2008 4:13 PM

just as African Americans would not tolerate the burning of a cross, and Jews would not tolerate the display of swastikas, Catholics will not tolerate the desecration of the Eucharist."

Niiice....what he did was like burning a cross in someone's yard. Un-fucking-believable...

Posted by: SC | July 24, 2008 4:22 PM

Aaaaaah. Peace.

(Allow me to angle again for one of those extra copies of TGD.)

Posted by: Ken Cope | July 24, 2008 4:28 PM

My favorite piece of religio-bile horked up on the previous thread is a double post from Irene (presently at #640):

Are your actions and words representative of the 8th rate university you teach at? So anyway, why did you leave Temple? Or were you run out of town?

She rather tidily provides an example of what you wrote about so eloquently in your pre-blasphemy essay. If she were to peek at your portrait I've no doubt Irene would first look for horns poking out from under a yarmulke, then figure they were airbrushed out.

Posted by: Ken Cope | July 24, 2008 4:35 PM

Wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more say no more, eh? Carlie?

Posted by: SC | July 24, 2008 4:36 PM

Since we're here on the calm thread, I'll take the opportunity to tell Brownian and Ken Cope how much I've enjoyed their comments lately.

Posted by: Niobe | July 24, 2008 4:38 PM

"Donohye has belched"

Shouldn't that be "brayed"?

Posted by: SC | July 24, 2008 4:39 PM

You would do The University of Minnesota a great disservice to loose him.

That's funny.

Posted by: Bryan | July 24, 2008 4:45 PM

Posted by: SC | July 24, 2008 4:39 PM

"You would do The University of Minnesota a great disservice to loose him.
That's funny."

Why is that funny?

Posted by: SC | July 24, 2008 4:49 PM

You would do The University of Minnesota a great disservice to loose him.

:)

Posted by: Carlie | July 24, 2008 4:50 PM

I am into photography...

Posted by: El Herring | July 24, 2008 4:53 PM

I've had to abandon it, I've never seen so much copy&paste vomit in my life.

I think someone's a bit upset.

Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 24, 2008 4:55 PM

#36--

I don't mind debating them substantively, but this spamming shit has got to stop.

Perhaps this site needs a rating system a la Dailykos.

Posted by: MrQhuest | July 24, 2008 5:01 PM

From the Catholic League:

"It is important for Catholics to know that the University of Minnesota will not tolerate the deliberate destruction of the Eucharist by one of its faculty. Just as African Americans would not tolerate the burning of a cross, and Jews would not tolerate the display of swastikas, Catholics will not tolerate the desecration of the Eucharist."

Hmmm... Burning a cross in your own home is an offense? Having a copy of Mein Kampf on your coffee table is a hate crime? There is no comparison here.

MrQhuest

Posted by: Brian Coughlan | July 24, 2008 5:06 PM

Highlights of Obama's speech are up : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xrKuQw0Ayw

Posted by: Gary Bohn | July 24, 2008 5:18 PM

Brownian #16: "Bet my province is lamer."

Not a chance. All we get are old farts from the '60s and one hit wonders. And we're too damn conservative to bring in anyone even remotely controversial. sigh.

Although we did get the Blue Man group.

Posted by: Ken Cope | July 24, 2008 5:27 PM

I am into photography...

Um, Nietzsche was a pho-to-grapher!

Posted by: Bart Mitchell | July 24, 2008 5:31 PM

Beautiful, I came home looking forward to cracker desecration, and instead I see ROY! Had to listen to him first.

As someone who finds himself, politically, in the middle, I find liberals to be far more refreshing to talk with for this very reason: They can laugh at themselves.

People who take themselves too seriously shouldn't be trusted.

Posted by: llewelly | July 24, 2008 5:37 PM

2. How about a little javascript to defeat the most common forms of cut-and-paste? You can easily write something to defeat right clicking and cntrl-V. I suspect you can defeat dragging text in with the mouse, but I don't know how to do that off the top of my head. Such things are pretty easy to defeat, but it should stop some of the stupider spammers from pasting in long screeds.

Posted by: Hessenroots | July 24, 2008 5:44 PM

"Whew. So nice to be in here away from the crowd."

Isn't it though? :)

925 comments, not long 'til it's killed I imagine.

Posted by: JoeBlu | July 24, 2008 6:01 PM

llewelly: Respect. You are truly among the most die hard of emacs users. I am ok with text boxes, but I hope one day to have reached that level of emacs oneness.

Posted by: Jon | July 24, 2008 6:05 PM

Nice, thanks for the reminder PZ! Roy is playing here next Wednesday. I am so there.

Posted by: Rahne | July 24, 2008 6:25 PM

I masturbate against my will all the time, it's part of the fun. :)

Posted by: Mark B. | July 24, 2008 6:27 PM

Garr, emacs. I used that a little when I was editing shell scripts back in the day. Powerful tool if you knew all of the keystroke shortcuts, but I never used it long enough to really get the hang of all that. The closest I get to that these days is editing Python scripts using either the Python editor or TextPad.

Posted by: Kel | July 24, 2008 6:44 PM

Got to love being a liberal.

Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | July 24, 2008 6:46 PM

From the Catholic League:

"It is important for Catholics to know that the University of Minnesota will not tolerate the deliberate destruction of the Eucharist by one of its faculty.

So... Donohue is spokesman of the U of Minnesota now?

Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 24, 2008 6:57 PM

Ken #72,

"brought to his knees"

They have such a coercive mentality. The idea of being free and independent must truly frighten them.

Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 24, 2008 7:10 PM

The last line is still viewable on the history page.

A testament to someone's fear of freedom.

Posted by: paul lurquin | July 24, 2008 7:39 PM

#60,

Yes, PZ used to be an assistant professor at Temple U. That's all in his published cv. Irene's question is legit; Why did PZ leave? Since he left after 6 years of service, I suspect that PZ was denied tenure. Again, his cv shows no research grants during that period and lame pubs. That's the kiss of death at a research university.

Also, UMM is 8th (or lower) rate compared with Temple.I really don't care about the desecration business and I don't have an axe to grind with PZ either. I do care about the whole truth, though. In addition, if PZ was indeed denied tenure (or was otherwise asked to leave) at Temple, that would be the ultimate irony, wouldn't it?

Posted by: "Q" the Enchanter | July 24, 2008 8:17 PM

Roy Zimmerman doesn't even get the half of it. Do you know how f***ing* sick and tired I am of all the arugula, latte and brie I have to consume?

*Expurgated version of 'fucking'.

Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 24, 2008 9:20 PM

#80--

This reminds me of a discussion I once had with a friend. He said "not all religious beliefs are harmful, some are benign and even charming." I told him I wasn't so sure. He told me I was being "dogmatic" and "unsophisticated."

This whole episode has vindicated my position, I think. Once you imbue an object or idea with other-worldly significance, you're pretty much severing ties to reality and heading for the Twilight Zone.

Posted by: arensb | July 24, 2008 10:20 PM

As each post takes up approximately 45 screens, they're proving to be rather effective speed bumps in the thread.

Just double-click a word somewhere (to tell your browser where to start searching) and search for "by:" to jump straight to the end of the post. (Let the machine find the end of the post for you. That's what machines are for.)

Posted by: arensb | July 24, 2008 10:38 PM

llewelly:

I type up nearly all of my comments in emacs, and then paste them into firefox.

You may want to look up the "It's all text" Firefox extension. It adds an "edit" button next to text fields, which allows you to edit the field with your favorite editor (thus saving you some copying and pasting). I have mine set to "emacsclient".

Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 25, 2008 12:03 AM

It wouldn't matter if PZ taught biology under a bridge to drifters.

Religious claims would still be complete rubbish.

Posted by: Downfall_of_humanity | July 25, 2008 2:42 AM

'Indeed, but how batshit insane they got does enable one to understand how religion warps the mind until the point where they believe that torturing people who don't believe in the magic cracker is OK."

#80: Nobody who is religious is torturing anyone. I am not even catholic, but you are acting like a pussy. Torturing is a long way from someone being disrespectful and just an outright dick to someone else.

Are liberals pussies like this all the time? Boo hoo they are upset because we disrespect other people and tramp all over their beliefs?

Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | July 25, 2008 3:05 AM

Careful where you walk, folks. That mangy cat just went D_o_h on the carpet.

Posted by: Downfall_of_humanity | July 25, 2008 4:10 AM

"Who fucking cares. Religion is still bullshit."

Bullshit to someone who is a douchebag maybe. Why the fuck to you have to be so useless to humanity?

Nobody would give a fuck what you believe as long as you don't attack others and act like a douchebag.

People here don't get it. They are like some fucking retarded kid complaining about someone else. Fucking pay attention to your own needs and leave other people alone.

It's pretty sad that I have to come on here and tell you something you should have learned from your parents. The world is not getting to be a better place to live and you are making it much worse.

Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 25, 2008 4:22 AM

It's "you're."

You religious kooks are ignorant fools.

Learn to spell, shit.

Posted by: Lisa Simpson | July 25, 2008 4:49 AM

I guess that executive stress ball we got d.o.h. for Christmas isn't working.

Posted by: Matt Heath | July 25, 2008 6:05 AM

I Zimmerman thread has been hijacked into God talk? Is nothing sacred to these people?

Screw this! I'm going to erv.

Posted by: Downfall_of_humanity | July 25, 2008 6:10 AM

"It's "you're."

You religious kooks are ignorant fools.

Learn to spell, shit."

I am not religious, bitch. I will learn to spell
if you learn to respect people who are religious (and respect people in general).

Posted by: deadman_932 | July 25, 2008 6:51 AM

"The religious people are doing their own thing and if you don't want to join in you don't have to do so. That is the beauty of freedom."

No, I don't have to join in. Yet they manage to intrude on my life every day. It's not just the dim bulbs like you trooping to my doorstep with pamphlets, it's prayers in public settings, it's threats of hellfire and damnation delivered even to children. It's public figures invoking Gods while being almost as hypocritical as you, D'oH, etc., etc.

" People on here are fucking morons and they should be locked up for their own good. "

Ah, yeah, that's brilliant. That'll show your loving tolerance that you demand from others but are unwilling to extend.

"I love America, but if I saw someone burning the flag and hating America in front of my home, they would get a beat down. I don't give a fuck if it's cloth or whatever, they deserve a beat down because they can't respect me..."

A "beat down?" That's cute, tuffy.

"I am not even religious nor catholic, but I do understand respect for other people."

Curious that you felt the need to repeat that several times so far in your posts. This while you bark like a chihuahua about beating people down for burning a piece of cloth that is an utterly arbitrary symbol of nationalism, then call for them to be imprisoned.

Consistency isn't your forte, junior, nor anything approximating even moderately reflective cognition.

Your posts go to demonstrate that holding symbols so sacred that you'd be willing to "beat down" another human being -- not for harming you or a loved one , but for a vacuous concept of birth-imposed ideation -- is a tragicomic hypocritical brain-barf of cognitive dissonance. Grow up. Move beyond your childlike concepts, Downfall_of_humanity.

Posted by: arensb | July 25, 2008 9:17 AM

"Q" the Enchanter @ #79:

Do you know how f***ing* sick and tired I am [...]

*Expurgated version of 'fucking'.

Until I saw the footnote, I thought all four stars stood for missing letters, and I was trying to make sense of "how flamingo sick and tired I am".

Posted by: Robin Edgar | July 25, 2008 11:03 AM

What it's like to be Richard Dawkins. . . ;-)

'The Atheist Supremacist's Song'

aka 'I Am The Very Model Of An Atheist Supremacist'

I am the very model of an Atheist Supremacist
I'm an Intellectual, Evangelical, Godless Evolutionist
I know the crimes of Christians, and I quote their fights historical
From Jerusalem to Ireland, in order categorical

I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters biological
I understand equivocation, both scientific and theological
About the "Holey Bible" I'm teeming with a lot o' news
With many fearful facts about Christians and the Jews

With many fearful facts about Christians and the Jews
With many fearful facts about Christians and the Jews
With many fearful facts about Christians and those darn Jews

I'm very good at bigotry and anti-religious insults
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous
In short, in matters biological, theological, and religious
I am the very model of an Atheist Supremacist

In short, in matters biological, theological, and religious
He is the very model of an Atheist Supremacist

I know God's mythic history, from Osiris to the (Day of Yule)
I answer to my critics, I've a petty taste for ridicule
I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus
In comics I will fight those other gods who are so fabulous

I can't tell undoubting Muslims from Bahá'ís or Zoroastrians
But know the croaking chorus from those corpse-cold Unitarians
Then I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's Rapical
And whistle at the "fairy tales" of infernal nonsense Biblical

And whistle at the "fairy tales" of infernal nonsense Biblical
And whistle at the "fairy tales" of infernal nonsense Biblical
And whistle at the "fairy tales" of infernal nonsense oh so Biblical

Then I can write a bashing book of Biblical enormity
And tell you ev'ry detail of Creationism's deformity
In short, in matters biological, Biblical, and religious
I am the very model of an Atheist Supremacist

In short, in matters biological, Biblical, and religious
He is the very model of an Atheist Supremacist

In fact, when I know what is meant by "Babylon" and "churlish"
When I can tell at sight a Mormon from a Whirling Dervish
When such affairs as prayers and "crackers" I'm more wary at
And when I know precisely what is meant by "Eat your hat"

When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern funnery
When I know more of tactlessness than a novice in a nunnery
In short, when I've a smattering of fundamental strategy
You'll say a better atheist had never spat at G

You'll say a better atheist had never spat at G
You'll say a better atheist had never spat at G
You'll say a better atheist had never ever spat at G

For my religious knowledge, though it's narrowy and shallowy
Has only been brought down to the early Nineteenth century
But still, in matters theological, minimal, and religious
I am the very model of an Atheist Supremacist

But still, in matters theological, minimal, and religious
He is the very model of an Atheist Supremacist

http://emersonavenger.blogspot.com/2008/07/is-richard-dawkins-very-model-of.html

Posted by: Valis | July 25, 2008 11:52 AM

Woohoo! I'm going to see Kevin Bloody Wilson live! Can't believe Kev is finally coming to South Africa. Can't wait! Ok, ok, I just had to share that.

Posted by: andyo | July 25, 2008 12:42 PM

Yeah, Robin, that's not funny, but comedy is subjective I'll give you that. And apparently, I'll have to give you that comedy is VERY subjective, if you meant that song to be funny. I won't criticize the purported "funniness" of it.

A couple of things, though. It's not original, since that "tune" has been used before to parody creationists. But you know that obviously. Let's just say that it's your Half-hour News Hour to the original parody's The Daily Show.

And, it's neither the "it's funny because it's true" kind of comedy, nor the "blatant satire", which your readers at least have to "get it". In fact, much like the failed New Yorker Obama cover, one doesn't really get if it's satire until knowing the usual contents of the magazine (your blog), or "reading the article inside" (going to your page). Well, at least you suckered me into your little corner of the interwebs.

Posted by: P | July 25, 2008 2:27 PM

Professor Myers,
As a fellow scientist and a Catholic, I find your desecration of the body of Christ and other other religious symbols to be both appalling and unscholarly. The fact that you also ripped out some pages from 'The God Delusion' does not warrant any of your hateful actions. Such behavior gives all non-religious people a bad name. Your time would be better spend debating Christians instead of persectuing them.

Posted by: Max Verret | July 25, 2008 2:33 PM

Re: Bryan at #30

When Donohue "belched" he did so in the face of the U. of Minnesota Board of Regents. Now on that Board we have:

Clyde Allen who was vice-President of Concordia College

Dean Johnson who spent 35 years of his life as Pastor of Calvary Lutheran Church and got his Master's from Luther Theological Seminary.

Now,right off hand, I would be surprised if they were in sync with the antics of PZ the atheist.

Posted by: Bryan | July 25, 2008 6:03 PM

Max Verret #115:

As unfamiliar as I am with the Board of UMN, I am quite familiar with the over-abundance of Lutherans in that region. I can also attest to what PZ has often said of those Lutherans. They are, for the most part, mild-mannered, reasonably deluded people with an affection for Ole and Lena jokes, Spite & Malice, Cribbage, pan-fried Walleye and sleepy, Sunday sermons. Although I would hardly expect them to endorse PZ, I doubt they would be quick to sympathize with the red-faced, tippie-toed bellowing of Bill Douchebag and the Catholic Thugs.

Posted by: Robin Edgar | July 25, 2008 7:24 PM

Steve said - Robin just post the link next time.

Well it only takes about a second to scroll past it if you don't want to read it Steve. . .

andyo said, "Yeah, Robin, that's not funny, but comedy is subjective I'll give you that. And apparently, I'll have to give you that comedy is VERY subjective, if you meant that song to be funny. I won't criticize the purported "funniness" of it."

But you already did andyo. You said, "that's not funny." It's amazing how "Brights" can't even get their facts straight half the time. . .

:A couple of things, though. It's not original, since that "tune" has been used before to parody creationists. But you know that obviously.

Obviously. . . That tune has been used to parody just about everything so it's kind of ridiculous to point out that doing so is not original. OTOH my use of it to parody Richard Dawkins and other Atheist Supremacists is quite original. I have not seen anyone else do so anyway.

:Let's just say that it's your Half-hour News Hour to the original parody's The Daily Show.

But I thought you said that you wouldn't criticize the purported "funniness" of it Andyo. ;-)

:And, it's neither the "it's funny because it's true" kind of comedy, nor the "blatant satire", which your readers at least have to "get it".

To quote Ronald Reagan - There you go again. . .

:In fact, much like the failed New Yorker Obama cover, one doesn't really get if it's satire until knowing the usual contents of the magazine (your blog), or "reading the article inside" (going to your page).

Good point. *Obviously* that is why I provided the link to it so that anyone who wanted to could read the "annotated" version of it.

http://emersonavenger.blogspot.com/2008/07/is-richard-dawkins-very-model-of.html

:Well, at least you suckered me into your little corner of the interwebs.

Well you know what famous U*U P.T. Barnum said about suckers. . . ;-)

Posted by: Robin Edgar | July 25, 2008 7:57 PM

IDiots just wanna have fun! ;-)

Posted by: psychodiva | July 26, 2008 12:08 PM

well done on the cracker chucking :)

but who is thatguy in the video?

Posted by: Steve_C | July 26, 2008 10:56 PM

Celeste...

What if you're wrong?

Posted by: Celeste | July 26, 2008 11:47 PM

Well, Damian, I do not consider it lowering my standards. And I didn't come to believe in God because I was indoctrinated. My family was Catholic in name only, as, apparently, are many of the hate-spewing "catholics" I've seen on the blogs lately. Just calling oneself Catholic doesn't make it so. There is a lot more to it.

There have been experiences in my life which convince me that there is more there than I can explain rationally. Many of them. But that does not mean that simply because it is unexplained that it automatically means it's spiritual. I accept that there is much that has a logical explanation that we simply do not understand yet. I also believe that there is more to life than can ever be explained by any level of science.

Ironically, it was my love for all things scientific that brought me to a belief in God in the first place.

I fully support your belief that there is no God. I also appreciate your willingness to discuss it without meaness. I'm afraid that the cracker fiasco has brought out the worst in both athiests and believers.

As far as the ability to argue against people who believe in things that are harmful, first a given belief must be shown to be harmful, and to whom. To paraphrase CS Lewis, we may well consider the person in the next pew to be a sinner, and know it to be so in fact, but who can tell how much worse he or she would be without faith?

This is the point where many bring up the scandalous behavior of some priests. It's horrible. Please understand that this is not condoned by anyone. Yes, the church made horrible mistakes and compounded the wrong done. But it was not done by all priests, and it is unfair and unjust to condemn all in a group for the crimes of some. Just as it would be for any group. Some in authority did cover it up. This also was wrong and cannot be defended.

The thing to remember is that Catholics, as any other group, are members of the human race in general, and as such you will find in it those who exemplify the best and the worst of people in general.

As for justifying my beliefs, I only have to justify them to myself and my God. If you don't believe in God, then I guess that means you have to justify your beliefs to yourself alone.

Again, thank you for your kindness in discussing this with me. There has been a paucity of courtesy in the blogs lately.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 27, 2008 12:08 AM

Whatever works for ya. I'm my own judge. And I have pretty rigorous standards.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 27, 2008 12:13 AM

All you get is an eye roll for me. I don't need any help thanks. I'm fine the way I am.

Posted by: Damian with an a | July 27, 2008 2:53 AM

Celeste:

Thank you for your reply. I'd like to make a couple of general points, related to tone, civility, and the use of bad language, first and foremost. I am naturally an inoffensive person. That doesn't mean that I refrain from arguing with force, but I am who I am, and I manage to maintain the same tone on the internet as I do in everyday life. That seems to be one of the major problems with debate on the internet -- people sometimes forget that they are interacting with another human being, in my experince.

Having said that, there are two things that I have noticed. Firstly, I often read complaints all around the web about certain sites, including this one, and how the people that frequent them are rude and uncivil, etc. From my own perspective, there are people that only seem to notice those type of comments, even if they are vastly in the minority. That seems to be a little unfair, in my opinion.

PZ doesn't censor comments on this blog, and I will admit that over the last few weeks it has not been a pretty sight [pun intended], at times. If someone leaves racist, or homophobic, or sexist remarks, they tend to be taken apart pretty quickly, and if they continue to make those sort of remarks, they will be banned, eventually. To be honest, I prefer that attitude, and particularly in comparison to some blogs where a comment will be removed, regardless of how civil you are, simply for disagreeing with the blog owner.

Also, I have noticed a trend where people seem to believe that their own personality, nature, and values, should be the standard for tone, civility, and language, etc. This is clearly erroneous because any standard should necessarily apply to all people, and so it is rather arrogant to believe that your own comfortability should be the standard to which you judge others. I would much rather reason my way to that standard, and even if it goes well beyond my own, accept that that is simply the way that I am, but also that it is unreasonable of me to expect others to be the same.

Celeste said:

My family was Catholic in name only, as, apparently, are many of the hate-spewing "catholics" I've seen on the blogs lately. Just calling oneself Catholic doesn't make it so. There is a lot more to it.

Oh no! :-) This is commonly known as The No True Scotsman Fallacy:

"In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith believe but subsequently lose it, are written off using the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy: they didn't really have faith, they weren't true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it."

Sorry to be nit-picky, but one of the reasons that this fallacy exists is because it necessarily leads to the "dumping" of those individuals that are not considered to be True Catholics [and they are generally the ones that are not very nice people] on to some other group! So essentially, by claiming that people who behave poorly are not really Catholics, it is possible to maintain that all true Catholics are good people.

I realize that you are both making a substantive point [about how people should behave], and that you weren't necessarily insinuating that those people aren't really Catholics. I just thought that I would point that out, though, if only to show off!

But that does not mean that simply because it is unexplained that it automatically means it's spiritual. I accept that there is much that has a logical explanation that we simply do not understand yet. I also believe that there is more to life than can ever be explained by any level of science.

I'm glad that you have said this. I'm sure that you are aware of St Augustine's famous warning about how Christians embarrass themselves and the faith when they deny good science, and when non-believers, or believers from other faiths, are more knowledgeable about the natural world?

I sometimes find that people are prepared to believe that literally everything is faith affirming, and without meaning to sound cruel, it both astounds me and scares me in equal measure. It is not that the individual lacks intelligence, or that they are so clearly ignorant of much of what science has discovered. That is common among all people, and it not necessarily something to be ashamed of. Most people have talents in at least one area, for a start. It is that they are often willing to accept unbelievably sloppy, and often downright erroneous, science, as well things that, on the face of it, are frankly absurd, seemingly because they want to believe so passionately.

I would also agree with you that "there is more to life than can ever be explained by any level of science", but as far as we know, it is only subjective experience that science cannot fully describe, and even then, it can do a fairly good job. It is unlikely that science will be able to describe certain aspects of subjective experience [i.e. the exact feeling], but it can still describe many of the aspects of that experience in exquisite detail.

One thing that we have found is that it is technology that limits us, more often than not. Now that we are starting to gain a much better understanding of the brain, and now that we have the technology to record and measure what is happening, it is possible to build up a picture of what love is, as well as the emotional underpinnings of the human mind, etc.

Ironically, it was my love for all things scientific that brought me to a belief in God in the first place.

I'd be interested to hear more about this, if that is alright with you. [yes, I'm nosy]

As far as the ability to argue against people who believe in things that are harmful, first a given belief must be shown to be harmful, and to whom. To paraphrase CS Lewis, we may well consider the person in the next pew to be a sinner, and know it to be so in fact, but who can tell how much worse he or she would be without faith?

Hmmn. I don't like that quote, if I'm honest. I am nothing like an idealist, but I have more confidence in humanity than that. It seems awfully defeatist, and I know that I have too much self respect, as well as respect for others, to write most people off in that way. For a start, it is now fairly clear that we are all born with a basic moral sense -- fairness, decency, altruism, and empathy -- that has evolved over hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years.

Of course, that very basic sense can either mature as we learn, or it can be corrupted. Given that we now understand how influential societal surroundings are in shaping young minds, as well as old, it should be possible in the future to work towards limiting the conditions that tend to influence people negatively, without affecting our freedoms, naturally. For instance, there is no question that people that are born in to poverty, on average, struggle in many areas of life that those who are born in to wealth do not. One way to minimize these effects is to create a fairer society, and particularly by narrowing the wealth gap.

If it interests you at all, we can explore morality more fully. I have a number of issues with a theistic morality, and I'm not convinced that enough believers have genuinely thought about how exactly their moral nature manifests itself.

This is the point where many bring up the scandalous behavior of some priests. It's horrible. Please understand that this is not condoned by anyone. Yes, the church made horrible mistakes and compounded the wrong done. But it was not done by all priests, and it is unfair and unjust to condemn all in a group for the crimes of some. Just as it would be for any group. Some in authority did cover it up. This also was wrong and cannot be defended.

I understand, and I don't think that it fair to bash Catholics over the head with this, although I certainly believe that it is a legitimate topic of conversation. Obviously I cannot say for sure, but I find it hard to imagine that I would have remained a Catholic, such was the gross misconduct. I do not say that as a judgment of those who have remained within the church. I realize that it is both a complex issue, and that I have not been in that position, so talk is cheap on my part.

As for justifying my beliefs, I only have to justify them to myself and my God. If you don't believe in God, then I guess that means you have to justify your beliefs to yourself alone.

Hey, that's no fair! :-) In all seriousness, I do believe that it is right and proper that you should have to justify your beliefs, if and when they influence you in terms of public policy. I am not in favor of excluding religion completely from the public square, but I do think that it is fair to expect you to be able to justify any decisions that you make, politically, etc.

I have to justify my beliefs within my own conscience, but also to the people that I love, and all people who I wish to influence. I think that's fair.

Again, thank you for your kindness in discussing this with me.

Thank you.

Posted by: NanuNanu | July 27, 2008 8:56 PM

I keep putting robin in the killfile but his posts keep appearing. Is anyone else having this problem?