Pharyngula

Posted by: Isamu | August 26, 2008 10:05 AM

I wonder if one would be closed minded if they don't accept the possibility of Zeus exists or Thor or the other pantheon of super powered invisible beings people have thought worthy of worship.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 26, 2008 10:09 AM

Isamu (@#2): Yes. The quality of open-mindedness is not strained; it falleth like a...no, wait, sorry.
The quality of open-mindedness requires that every possibility, no matter how outlandish or counterfactual, be entertained as not just possible, but plausible. For example, if you blindly accept the dogma that 2+2=4 then you are closed-minded.
Bigot!!!!

Posted by: Randy | August 26, 2008 10:16 AM

I was blind, but now I see the Bingo. Why, after seeing all of these rational, well thought-out, new arguments I have decided to renounce atheism and follow the teachings of Kanaloa, Polynesian god of death and squid.

Posted by: Deepsix | August 26, 2008 10:36 AM

Everyone is copying you, PZ. Someone stole your logo and mantra for their own CD! Based on the cover art and title, I would have bet for sure you produced this:
http://www.amazon.com/Exterminate-Everything-Around-Restricts-Master/dp/B000VDDBIY

Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 26, 2008 10:46 AM

They forgot, "I can show that God could exist, and you can't disprove him. I win."

Which gets to the heart of the rancidity of "liberal Christianity."

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

Posted by: Phaedrus | August 26, 2008 10:53 AM

What happened to the square that reads, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!"?

Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | August 26, 2008 10:59 AM

they take everything in the New Testament literally. What do others think of this meme?

Posted by: Fred Mounts | August 26, 2008 11:09 AM

I was attempting to date an Episcopalian that freely recognizes that much of the bible is myth and not historically accurate, but she still insisted that God is love. I never quite figured out where she was pulling that from, but I had a good idea (And no, I didn't stick around long enough to see that place).

Posted by: Jason | August 26, 2008 11:21 AM

The big problem with the Liberal Christians (aside from some of the great complaints PZ has filed [see 'Theology is a Decietful Strategy']) is that they dont realize that their whole 'belief' system is hollow and empty.

Fundementalist Christians, as wrong and as crazy as they may be, are at least internally consistant: the bible says what it means. The liberal Christians interpret the bible in vague, metaphorical, changing ways to fit their lifestyle, which is all well and good, except that, well, they've added a large, unneccesary component called religion.

A good example of what I mean comes from the old philosophical defense of inductive logic; "All swans are white." People used to think that this proved inductive logic to consistently hold, because even though they haven't seen every swan, every swan that they had seen had been white. Until they reached Australia, and they saw black swans, ruining the proposition "all swans are white." Except a small group tried to defend the proposition, saying "All swans ARE white, and if it isn't white then it isn't a swan!" ....... I'll let you see the gaping problem with that last statement on your own; think about it.

Anyway, to bring everything together: Liberal Christians read "All swans are white" in the bible, then when science and reality give us a black swan, its the Liberal Christians crying "All swans ARE white, and if it isn't white it isn't a swan." (Fundementalists will just lie about the black swan and try to cover it up)

Posted by: BobC | August 26, 2008 11:23 AM

Mike G (#15):

So a lot of those blocks are fair characterizations of a good number of atheists, not just here but at a number of other websites as well.

A quote from Mike G in #207 from the "Will we ever stop running away from the source of the problem?" thread: In my opinion, when it comes to critiquing religion, scientists should stay the hell out of the debate.

There should be a bingo game for people like Mike G who thinks everyone should suck up to Christian idiots, and who think scientists should shut up about religious insanity.

Another quote from Mike G: they need to be shown that a compromise can be reached between belief in god (including belief in Jesus as the saviour) and what science has to say.

Mike G calls their man-god "Jesus as the saviour". How nice and respectful and stupid.

Posted by: wÒÓ† | August 26, 2008 11:35 AM

(.)(.)

Posted by: Fergy | August 26, 2008 11:41 AM

Zeus or Thor seem to be more plausible than evolution is nowadays as far as evidence is concerned

Really? More plausible? Wow...

Perhaps you can point to some of this mountain of evidence about Zeus or Thor, because there must be lots of it out there to make it "more plausible" than evolution.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: JStein | August 26, 2008 11:44 AM

Wow, this is hysterical. Thanks for that, PZ, you made my morning.

Posted by: nobi yuno | August 26, 2008 11:45 AM

Fundementalist Christians, as wrong and as crazy as they may be, are at least internally consistant: the bible says what it means.

Well, I think that's a bunch of nonsense. The forces of fate and marriage required me to attend a nephew's baptism two weeks ago. It was a Baptist church out in the sticks, south of Dayton. The preacher and his spittle held forth at great length about moral degeneracy. Then he told a story about a visit to Ken Ham's creationist museum and testified to his pure, unspoiled belief in biblical literalism. Then my nephew and the preacher disappeared behind a curtain, then reemerged, my nephew in the preacher's arms, and the preacher wearing rubber hip-waders (I am not making this up). The kid got dunked and a few more words were spoken about the importance of handing out Chick tracts without worrying that others would think you're queer - not in the gay sense, he emphatically stated, but in the peculiar sense. Because gays are going to hell. End of service.

My brother in law, who is a cretin, sheepishly told me that at least the man really practices what he believes, and really takes it seriously.

Look, we get one shot on this earth. A liberal christian who doesn't take Christianity all that seriously or literally is much, much, much preferable than a bible-slapping snake-juggling drowner of small children who really, really means it. The extent to which he really means it is the extent to which he's an idiot. Those who mean it less seriously are less idiotic.

The quality of their thinking may not be any better, but they are preferable as people and make better citizens and allies. Very easy to mock these words, but at the end of the day we have go out and vote and we want people voting for politicians who will enact the policies we like.

Posted by: Rebecca C. | August 26, 2008 11:49 AM

@21
My Anglican congregation was different

I think the point of this bingo card is that, as long as your church supports the view that supernatural beings exist, then, no, your congregation is NOT different. No matter if they're nice, love Teh Gays, think women should be presidents, don't believe in hell, give out gluten-free vegan cookies ... they still believe in ghosts, which is an impediment to evidence-based reasoning.

Posted by: MS | August 26, 2008 12:02 PM

Re #18: "Fundamentalist Christians, as wrong and as crazy as they may be, are at least internally consistant: the bible says what it means." Actually, they SAY that, but they don't really mean it. Fundies are almost as "pick and choosist" as liberal Christians.

The only way to maintain that the Bible is literally true is to pretend that certain passages simply don't mean what they clearly say. Just to cite a few examples: the passage where Satan takes Jesus to the top of a high mountain and shows him "all the kingdoms" of the Earth is impossible unless the Earth is flat. I don't think any fundies truly believe that there is a dome in the sky holding back water, and that God makes it rain by opening windows in the dome. They will tell you that that passage is a metaphor, but there is no evidence at all that it wasn't originally meant literally. There are innumerable similar passages, now taken to be metaphor or poetic description, but which were certainly once taken literally. Probably some of them actually were metaphor or poetry, but how to decide? There are three descriptions of the death of Saul, and two of the death of Judas. Reading the attempts to reconcile those passages is very amusing. Fundies who cite the OT about homosexuality somehow find a way to get around the pesky passages that would inconvenience them personally. Ask a fundie to explain why an omniscient being needs to ask Adam and Eve questions in the Garden that he would have known the answer to; there is nothing in the text to suggest that the questions were not genuine. It goes on and on.

All that said, I more or less agree with your main point, that fundies do indeed believe in something very passionately, which most liberal Christians kinda don't. However, what they say they believe and what they actually believe are two different things.

Posted by: Holbach | August 26, 2008 12:07 PM

That poster should be labeled "Aaahh, Liberal christian Bonkers!" And the religionists wonder why they are subjected to so much ridicule by the rational minority. Let Bugs have the last word; "Boy, what maroons!"

Posted by: Ignorant Atheist | August 26, 2008 12:21 PM

BINGO!

Posted by: Rob in Memphis | August 26, 2008 12:32 PM

There was another one that got left out: "We may disagree, but we have to respect one another's beliefs." (The obvious response to that being, of course,"I respect your right to believe anything you like, but that doesn't mean I have to respect the beliefs themselves, especially if they're laugh-out-loud stupid.")

Posted by: BobC | August 26, 2008 12:37 PM

If you believe in a talking snake, Santa Jesus, the power of prayer, etc, those are qualifying conditions for stupidity and ignorance.

I agree, but you left out Mr. God in your list of beliefs. Anyone who believes there's a fairy hiding the clouds (all theists believe this) is not much better than the religious extremists.

Posted by: SteveM | August 26, 2008 12:40 PM

"All swans ARE white, and if it isn't white then it isn't a swan!" ....... I'll let you see the gaping problem with that last statement on your own; think about it.

Sorry, I don't see the problem. It just means that "white" is being included in the definition of "swan". We are just talking about a name for an animal, and it seems that "swan" does indeed imply that it is white, since one never says, "I saw a white swan yesterday", yet a black swan requires the color modifier, otherwise you would assume the swan to be white. So, even though they are the same species but with different color feathers, one is "a swan" and the other is "a black swan".

Anyway, as for the bingo card, it really should have that bible quote they are always throwing around about "the fool says in his heart there is no god". That always seems to come up in these kinds of threads.

Posted by: Qwerty | August 26, 2008 12:41 PM

If you get a BINGO, do you receive a consecrated cracker as a prize?

Posted by: Carlie | August 26, 2008 12:46 PM

What happened to the square that reads, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!"?

No, no, that's the fundie bingo card. Entirely different.

Posted by: chancelikely | August 26, 2008 12:48 PM

Mike G, #39: "Science is not a forum for debating matters of religion. If you think that it is, then you misunderstand what both science and religion are."

Do people come back from the dead?
Is it possible to put pairs of every species on a wooden boat, have five miles deep of water show up out of nowhere in particular, have the boat float (and none of the animals die) for six weeks of rain, and have all the animals return to their places of origin, none of them the wiser?
Do donkeys or snakes talk?
Is it possible to turn wheat flour into human flesh while wearing a dress and saying a particular incantation?

Seems to me science has a lot to say about particular claims of religions.

Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | August 26, 2008 12:51 PM

Lee Picton #23

Woot is sort of like BFF.

For you and anyone new to Pharyngula, open "A Taste of Pharyngula the complete list", at the top left margin. Many scientific posts and some of PZ's best essays. Also, look at "Commenters" and "Dungeon" at the top of the page.

I come for the posts, and I stay for the comments.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | August 26, 2008 12:57 PM

Mike G,
You keep making sweeping claims about science and religion, that when examined turn out to be unsupported ("science is not a forum for debating matters of religion", mockery will just drive believers deeper into their beliefs) or just plain wrong - like your claim that the Catholic Church has stopped claiming that miracles occur. Why?

Posted by: Larry | August 26, 2008 1:00 PM

Don't you think that putting the imaginary before sky pixie is a bit unnecessary? Not that I'm ruling out the possibility of real sky pixies, mind you. I don't want to be accused of being close-minded.

Posted by: SteveM | August 26, 2008 1:05 PM

There are innumerable similar passages, now taken to be metaphor or poetic description, but which were certainly once taken literally.

It is all metaphor and that was probably the original understanding and only recently (due probably to whatshisname's search for Troy) that we've started considering it to be literal.

Prof. Jerry Lettvin gave an interesting lecture many years ago about interpreting the story of Perseus and the Medusa as a metaphor describing the characteristics of the 3 major cephalopods in the Mediterranean. He felt that this was how people retained and passed one huge quantities of data in the time before writing. That metaphors and stories are memory aids and more easily retained than just "dry facts". I think the same is true of the bible, it is a collection os stories to teach morality. Each story is seperate even though may have the same characters. When these were oral, they were probably never told sequentially and all at once, so no one cared about consistency. Only since they've been compiled into a book can we find the inconsistencies and contradictions. But that is what tells us this is the work of man, not god. Surely the "word of god" would be perfectly consistent. If the bible-ists want to use it as their moral guidebook, fine, there are many fine moral and ethical teachings in there, just stop calling it the "word of god".

Posted by: Scrabcake | August 26, 2008 1:14 PM

I actually went to church this weekend. My boyfriend is religious and goes to a very liberal church in San Francisco. I actually found the sermon meaningful (being about shutting up and listening to people and giving them the resources to solve their own problems), once I mentally removed all the Jesus.
The same sermon could have been read into Dickens or any good writer, and the value wasn't really in the text but in the minister's interpretation of it.
I think there is some value in getting talks that make you think about ethics and the way you behave without shoving 2000 year old mythology down your throat. There is some benefit in group self-reflection. I don't see why it needs Christianity, (or islam, etc) though. In my opinion, the mythology only ties down the message and weakens it by muddying the water with archaisms and contradictions.

Posted by: Mike G | August 26, 2008 1:21 PM

#48
"Seems to me science has a lot to say about particular claims of religions."

That is religion intruding into scientific territory. Science isolates itself to measurable empirical matters. Religion in general is concerned with other things, normally those things that are beyond the scope of science, e.g. god, the soul, the supernatural; those things that fall under the religious definition of spirituality. Some religions do try to attach and make relevant to their spiritual teachings claims that can theoretically be judged by science, but like I said it is only then that religion intrudes into the domain of science.

There are some religions that make no measurable empirical claims, Buddhism being one such religion, (it has no creation story for one thing). And it is of my opinion that all religions should follow that model.

Posted by: frog | August 26, 2008 1:22 PM

BobC: All gods in human history were invented to solve scientific problems, and that's why your "Science is not a forum for debating matters of religion" is bullshit.

Are aesthetic problems, problems of how should we live, scientific problems? The meta problem of how we develop aesthetics may be scientific, but it seems to me that the problem itself is not a scientific problem of objective, global, reality, but one of subjective, local, reality.

That means that there is a space there of "problems" that the religious pose that are not scientific problems. Now, religion may not be the proper method to answer questions of literature, ethics and architecture; but then again, science can only answer part of these questions (the meta part, the engineering part).

Religion is awfully wrong when it tries to answer objective questions; but it is merely a primitive way to answer subjective questions.

Posted by: Chironex | August 26, 2008 1:29 PM

I feel stupid. I don't under stand what's funny about this. How would you even play? I don't get it.

Posted by: CJO | August 26, 2008 1:33 PM

All gods in human history were invented to solve scientific problems, and that's why your "Science is not a forum for debating matters of religion" is bullshit.

Bob,
It is bullshit, unless Mike is saying something other than the plain meaning of those words, but not because "all gods in human history were invented to solve scientific problems," because that's certainly not true. I guess I take you to mean that ancient peoples didn't understand the natural world, and so populated it with a cast of characters to explain phenomena in terms of intentional agents. While they did explain (or explain away) things by appeal to the actions of spirits and deities, it is highly questionable that this was the impetus for their invention. Much more likely, the agents were already to hand and primed to be put to use in that way.

I'll put it this way: an origin myth or a cosmogony does not really "solve scientific problems." Whether it's turtles all the way down or the Earth is a raft on the cosmic sea is really a question of aesthetics as much or more than really satisfying one's curiosity: such stories were told and retold, as a form of entertainment. It just didn't have enough bearing on everyday life to merit being called problem solving. And when ancient peoples did face empirical problems with direct consequences for their livelihood, they solved them empirically, just like you and I do, albeit without the rigor we expect from the formal use of modern scientific methods.

Posted by: Mike G | August 26, 2008 1:52 PM

God: generally defined as a higher power that exists distinct and separate to the universe. The question of the existence of such a being is not something that science is equipped to answer.

Supernatural: something that is above/beyond nature. Since science isolates itself to the empirical in describing nature, how can it deal with the supernatural?

Science can not answer everything. It can not answer moral questions; it can not do politics; it can not tell us what we should do with our lives; it can't even tell us who we should love or what we should like. Science can at beast, inform us. I am simply recognizing that science is limited to certain types of questions, questions that can only be answered in a physically measurable way.

Now, do I believe that the supernatural or god exists? I'm an atheist, so of course not. But I do recognize that the question of the existence of such things can not be answered by science, or anything else for that matter, that's why I'm also an agnostic. I also believe that as nonsensical as religions tend to be, they can serve legitimate purposes.

Now as to the soul, I find agreeable the sorts of definitions that Aristotle and Epicurus provided.

Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | August 26, 2008 1:56 PM

I look forward to finding articles about Francis Collins or Ken Miller in the blogosphere, and finding comments thereafter which exclaim simply:

Bingo!

Posted by: Justin H. | August 26, 2008 2:08 PM

Don't see a square for 'I'm praying for you.'

Posted by: Mike G | August 26, 2008 2:16 PM

It's not about what religion can answer, it's about what it can provide. And while there are certain places where anything it provides tends to be detrimental, such as politics and science, there are other places where its provisions are beneficial. I think the most obvious benefit for most people in is dealing with death.

Even though it is fiction it can still provide inspiration for beautiful art, much like any other fiction can. And fiction can certainly provide moral guidance. Who can deny that the story of the Shepherd and the Lion doesn't provide a valuable moral? Or what about the Boy who cried Wolf?

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 26, 2008 2:26 PM

but I suppose if I were to use my own definitions I would fit the category of 'liberal christian'.

...ours too.

I can't seem to completely get rid of it

such is the danger of indoctrination in this medieval nonsense; it tends to stick with you even when you know better.

like carrying around a lucky charm when you consciously realize it has no causal effect.

just let it go, man.

Posted by: frog | August 26, 2008 2:29 PM

MikeG: Even though it is fiction it can still provide inspiration for beautiful art, much like any other fiction can. And fiction can certainly provide moral guidance.

So of what use is religion? If the Boy who cried Wolf gives us moral guidance, why invent jeebus? If you're going to develop a fictional structure for emotional guidance, why not use something sophisticated and interesting rather than something stupid and primitive? Of what use is religion itself, except as a primitive attempt at literature and psycho-analysis?

I'd rather read Gravities Rainbow than the ergot induced ravings of some goat herder from ancient times. And don't try to stretch the definition of religion to cover everything that's subjective -- that would be a meaningless and cheap trick.

Religion, as you describe it, is the crutch of those who can't (or won't) produce new fictions. It's totalitarian art, the ugliest kind of art, handed down by authorities. If you need to dance to the music of invisible fairies, at least have the intellectual courage to develop your own fairy-world, rather than simply plagiarizing the work of the long-dead.

Posted by: Jason | August 26, 2008 2:37 PM

From #42: " It just means that "white" is being included in the definition of "swan". "

Thats the problem. Its a tautology, and therefore contains no meaningful information. Its the equivalent of saying 'All apples are apples, and if its not an apple then it isn't an apple.' It's a proposition that is, and has to be, true in every possible world, under every possible condition, and can't ever be falsified. If non-white swans aren't actually swans, then the statement "All swans are white," doesn't have any MEANINGFUL information about swans, the world, etc. Whats worse, toss in the word metaphor, and now it means whatever you want it to mean.

Posted by: Tony | August 26, 2008 2:41 PM

I must have missed something, because I would have a hard time classifying any of the remarks on the card as "Liberal" Christian. "Fundamentalist" for sure, but I don't know any Christians who consider themselves Liberals that wouldn