…and this is a 
In a bizarre conversation, Murphy-O'Connor demonstrates a Catholic version of open-mindedness: human beings must have a sense of the transcendent, and must search for god. And those atheists? "Not fully human".
It's not that unusual a sentiment, and I've heard it often. Usually it's not said as directly; most often, the phrase is that "religion is a human universal," or some such nonsense. It's not often announced that I don't qualify as a member of their species.
There is a temptation to agree with them, I'm afraid: the idea that I'm a post-human mutant bestowed with the super-powers of reason and the ability to see through superstition is flattering. But it's not true. Everyone has those powers, it's just that some of us have had the good fortune and a history of experience that allows us to shake off some indoctrination. Nothing more.
Also, the Cardinal's statements are the kind of thing you'd expect from a Catholic theocracy trying to politely rationalize why they've put up a row of stakes in front of the cathedral.
Comments
Posted by: Ahnald Brownshwagga the Monkey
|
May 14, 2009 9:36 AM
To experience transcendental moments you dont need to kneel in a room with stain glass windows.
Posted by: Alverant
|
May 14, 2009 9:37 AM
Wasn't this mentioned on Jesus and Mo?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 14, 2009 9:37 AM
I'm not even partially human.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 14, 2009 9:38 AM
I'm not insulted that a cleric doesn't think I'm completely human. He doesn't think Jebus was completely human. I don't mind at all if a religious type conflates me with his god.
Posted by: Victor
|
May 14, 2009 9:40 AM
Well, I think he's a fully superstitious asshat.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
May 14, 2009 9:41 AM
In my experience, theists often have to twist the meaning of words to make any kind of argument at all. "Lack of belief" becomes "firmly held faith," "atheism" becomes "a religion," "evolution" becomes "a giant conspiracy to separate us from god," and "quantum uncertainty" becomes "the mind and will of god."
I've taken to using their own tactics against them. "God" is now "Elvis." No, seriously: any time you have the misfortune to stumble upon a Chick track, substitute the words "God," "Jesus," "Lord," and so on with "Elvis." It makes the tracks funnier, and the self-parody becomes evident.
Sorry. My non-human mind was wandering there.
I wonder what we should label our species? Homo rationalis? (Yeah, that's right. I didn't study Latin.)
Posted by: Rick R | May 14, 2009 9:43 AM
"To experience transcendental moments you dont need to kneel in a room with stain glass windows."
So true. Especially before a man in a pretty dress and Prada shoes.
I before a more butch scene.
Posted by: BAllanJ | May 14, 2009 9:45 AM
This is really funny, since it would be really easy to build a robot cardinal than a robot "fully human"... you don't have to make the reproductive bits, all the programming can be finished after entering the bible and it doesn't have to learn anything after that. So is a cardinal fully human?
I guess it's fair if they think me less than fully human if I think them less than fully rational.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 14, 2009 9:46 AM
Then again,who cares,if somesuch is announced by the RCC??
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 14, 2009 9:47 AM
I am not a human being... I... am... an... ANIMAL....
Posted by: Rick R | May 14, 2009 9:47 AM
Sorry, that should be "I prefer a more butch scene."
I blame weak coffee.
Posted by: KI | May 14, 2009 9:50 AM
I, for one, renounced my membership in the human species long ago.
"I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong in being 'inhuman', it could mean someone beyond human, a new species, or a higher understanding."-Iggy Pop.
Posted by: Matt | May 14, 2009 9:51 AM
Referenced in the latest Jesus and Mo...
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/05/12/joy/
And for people in the UK, there's a Number 10 petition to not give Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor a peerage:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/nocormacpeerage/
Sign up now, and in a few months' time you too could receive a pathetic excuse for why they ignored the petition!
Posted by: Eurosid | May 14, 2009 9:52 AM
"I wonder what we should label our species? Homo rationalis?"
I like it. Or, maybe Homo Logicus?
Posted by: Emmet, OM
|
May 14, 2009 9:52 AM
Must… resist… Godwin…
Posted by: Drosera
|
May 14, 2009 9:52 AM
This evil parasite, this bloated virus in a fancy costume is calling ME not completely human? I wish people could be vaccinated against the mental diseases caused by the likes of this guy.
Posted by: TomDunlap
|
May 14, 2009 9:52 AM
Human? This is something to aspire to? Another evolutionary dead end.
Posted by: genesgalore | May 14, 2009 9:53 AM
i choose not to be deluded..let alone ignorant of fact.
Posted by: Moggie
|
May 14, 2009 9:53 AM
If I'm not fully human, presumably that means that I'm not subject to the heavenly rules which he believes apply to humans but not to chimps. No heaven for me, but, equally, no hell either.
I can't watch this video at work, but I assume there's some pious hand-waving about how we're missing out on something wonderful which all full humans deserve to experience. But one could say the same about the severely cognitively impaired: imagine the uproar if the Cardie had declared them less than human.
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 14, 2009 9:57 AM
Being human means standing up in front of people wearing a pointy hat, indoctrinating them into your cult, and taking their money.
What if everyone did that, Cardinal, then where would we be?
Count me out.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 14, 2009 9:59 AM
Fastest. Goalpost shift. EVAH! Typical though. All conversations with the more subtle type of apologist seem to be the same bait and switch.Feagletosh: You know that feeling of numinous wonder when you look at the stars or listen to Bach.
Ditchkins: I do indeed
Feagletosh: Well we call that God.
Ditchkins: OK. "God", so defined, exists. Is that really the sort of thing you are referring to when you discuss God?
Feagletosh: Yes, yes. Stars, Bach, sex with someone you love, waking up a feeling inexplicably cheerful, the smile of a child: all the subtle and intense emotion that comes from that stuff. Also compassion.
Ditchkins: Hmm maybe we've been talking past each other. If anything is worthy of devotion, it's things like that. Maybe out disagreements are simply a matter of language.
Feagletosh: O and God built humanity, who failed Him by scrumping and needed saving so he sent His son (who He also was) to be nailed to a piece of wood.
Ditchkins: I'm going to change the subject now.
Posted by: nik1979 | May 14, 2009 9:59 AM
Hmmm, an intentional attack. Signs of Insecurity IMO, hehehe probably means Anti-theists are getting on his nerves. Hope he shoots his mouth off some more and finds a wider audience. he'd probably push the fence sitters the opposite direction he is intending.
Posted by: Drosera
|
May 14, 2009 10:00 AM
Like Emmet at #17 I had to resist a Godwin. Let me just drop one word: Untermensch. Sorry, couldn't resist after all.
Posted by: Widgetas
|
May 14, 2009 10:00 AM
I wonder if he views us as less human than Michael Hill...?
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid
|
May 14, 2009 10:02 AM
Me? I'm an aphid. Who needs to be human?
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 14, 2009 10:09 AM
The last line of my dialogue sucks. In my mind they were in a pub and the subject change was to keep the evening from getting boring, but any Ditchkins worthy of the name would have pwned him.
Posted by: Moggie
|
May 14, 2009 10:09 AM
I bet Noah was really pissed off about having two atheists on the ark, complaining about the weather the whole time.
Posted by: AJ Milne | May 14, 2009 10:12 AM
And, not entirely coincidentally, I think Cardinal Cormack Murphy-O'Connor is a few bricks short, myself.
But I would add his bizarre nastiness here is part of an ongoing theme. See also the 'atheism is also religion' gambit, the various three-card Monte 'since you cannot prove anything, you may believe anything quite without any evidence whatsoever' epistemological wankfests, and variants. One approach to dealing with the criticism from those who call 'em out on their BS is to try to make 'faith' a necessary or unescapable condition, by whatever means they can. Since actually criticism on that level is pretty much unanswerable, try to rule it out entirely.
Brazen, sure. But no one ever accused these people of actually knowing shame.
Posted by: Erik | May 14, 2009 10:13 AM
I have heard on many occasions a variant of this, which is that we will never know the religious experience. There seems to be an idea that since it can be an intensely beautiful experience, missing out on it means that, well, we have missed out. (I hesitate to reply that I have also missed out on childbirth, being male, and cocaine addiction.) Unfortunately, the only way to truly have this experience, as far as I can tell, is to remain willfully ignorant of the facts. The problem for me is that I can't and won't unring the bell.
Posted by: Luis Dias | May 14, 2009 10:13 AM
Wow, come on PZ! He's not saying something flabbergastingly wrong.
I am an atheist and, GASP!, I fully agree with him. I can not fully trust anyone that doesn't share a sense of the transcendent.
He doesn't even equate it to God, he clearly says, "we call it God", which implies that some other people may call it something else altogether.
I call it "transcendent". I think that's a good word that defines well what "transcendent" means, dontha think? :D
Posted by: AJ Milne | May 14, 2009 10:15 AM
... and re #22, fuck, yeah. I find I actually kinda like hearing 'em spout this stuff.
Getting nervous, Cardinal?
Well I hope so, ya lying asshat.
Posted by: mck9 | May 14, 2009 10:15 AM
PZ, you're being a mite hypersensitive here.
You're a biologist. You think in terms of genera and species. "Human" = "homo sapiens".
The Cardinal is not talking biology, he's talking theology. "Not fully human" doesn't mean "belonging to a lesser species"; it means something like "suboptimal", or "not fully realized", or "less than you could be." Or even, dare I say it, "not fully evolved" (in the Pokemon sense).
It's still a bunch of pompous twaddle, but it's not quite the insult that you seem to think it is.
Posted by: Luis Dias | May 14, 2009 10:17 AM
Really, I think all of you are reading too much out of his words.
Yeah, the guy is preaching and proselitizing, but that's his job, so everyone knows how to deal with it with a grain of salt.
And Goodwin? Come on now, grow up.
Posted by: truthspeaker | May 14, 2009 10:18 AM
I, for one, welcome our new partially human atheist overlords.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
May 14, 2009 10:19 AM
Which merely goes to show that atheists can also be shallow-minded fools.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 14, 2009 10:19 AM
You can't "trust" them?
Posted by: Ditchkins | May 14, 2009 10:20 AM
Let me help you Matt.
Me: That logic is so twisted that God must have made you in His image.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 14, 2009 10:21 AM
sigh
Where is my internet bat? I want to smash SB formatting to tiny jagged pieces and then force feed them to the webnerds.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 14, 2009 10:22 AM
No. I happen to think that if anyone that stares at the Hubble telescope images and doesn't feel the need to recite poetry, he is not really an interesting fellow creature. He lacks something in his heart.
Same goes with music.
Come on, I'm not speaking martian over here, am I?
Posted by: Rick L. | May 14, 2009 10:23 AM
He's got it backwards. An animal can be conditioned and is confined to their pre-dispositions much more so than a human. While I don't want to attack the "humanity" of any believer, I think what distinguishes humans is our ability to transcend our pre-dispositions, specifically, our pre-disposition to seek agency and our predisposition to believe in God and engage in religious behavior. Furthermore, the "sense of the transcendent" and the "search for god" are really nothing more than a manifestation of the excess brain power we have a species. It allows us to be both creative and inquisitive. Our creative ability, however, must be tempered by our ability to reason and be skeptical. When that happens, it often results in the conclusion that "god" and the "transcendent" are nothing more than fictions. To be fully human, is to use the full spectrum of human potential in ways that other species cannot.
Posted by: Aquaria | May 14, 2009 10:24 AM
Uh, 30, is that supposed to be any fucking better? Whichever way he meant "human," it's insulting and degrading.
Funny how never before seen nyms sprout up on these religion threads, all claiming to be atheists and doing the Matt Nisbett tango.
Go to his blog, you wankers. You can all get together and clutch your pearls and enable the petticoated pedo priests to your hearts' content.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 14, 2009 10:25 AM
not martian but something else that starts with an "m"
Posted by: Aquaria | May 14, 2009 10:26 AM
Argh. 32, not 30.
Posted by: Mike K | May 14, 2009 10:26 AM
Can someone send me the ingredients list of a fully full human?
Posted by: Buford | May 14, 2009 10:26 AM
PZ said: "...some of us have had the good fortune and a history of experience that allows us to shake off some indoctrination."
And some of us were even luckier and were not indoctrinated to begin with. At least, I was never indoctrinated and had no un-conversion.
Posted by: Michael Kremer | May 14, 2009 10:27 AM
Hmmm... As I understand PZ's position on certain controversial issues, there are members of the same species as PZ that are not "fully human" -- young-ish members. I understand his position to be that being "fully human" requires more than membership in the biological species; it requires certain capacities that only develop later in life.
So, the Cardinal's position seems to be structurally similar to PZ's. The difference is only in the capacities seen as relevant.
And in particular, from the Cardinal's saying that atheists are not fully human, it does not follow that he is saying that atheists are not members of the same biological species as him. Rather, he is saying that atheists fall short of the full development of the potential of that species.
Of course the readership of Pharyngula will disagree about the relevant capacities but that is another matter.
(PZ Myers: "1) Where do you fall under the pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion rights continuum?
Way, way, way to the pro side. I’m in favor of voluntary late term abortions (where premature birth would impose severe economic hardship, for instance), and can even consider situations where infanticide is ethically tenable.
...
3) Why do you support abortion rights? Be honest, please.
Because I value human life. There is more to being human than having the right number of chromosomes or arrangement of tissues; things like autonomy, cognitive development, and personality are more important metrics. Fetuses lack all three."
Source: http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/when_women_ask_whats_on_my_mind_i_cannot_resist/)
Posted by: Luis Dias | May 14, 2009 10:29 AM
Aquaria, come down of your fucking horse, I'm not saying anything preposterous. What is it in this blog that makes people behave even more irrationally than catholics?
Pff Anyway, if you want to see a goddamned fucking great atheist who claims EXACTLY what I do, check Christopher Hitchens' words on that very same subject.
And Rev, care to develop that "m"? I'm not english.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
May 14, 2009 10:29 AM
No. You are speaking moron. Is that like martian?
Posted by: Aquaria | May 14, 2009 10:32 AM
Funny, the petticoated pedo didn't quantify what he meant by the transcendent. He made a blanket statement, while knowing fuck- all about what any of us have ever experienced. He's assuming shit that he doesn't have any fucking evidence for.
Then again, he's a theist--that's what they do.
Now does it sink in?
Posted by: Luis Dias | May 14, 2009 10:32 AM
Nigel, you're a brat.
Fellow people then, what do you make of what "Art" is then? Just a idiotic intuition of what we are trying to reach with science anyway?
Of course not. It's the human expression of the human condition, and the best expressions of it are fucking transcendent, okay?
Fuck, am I talking to 12 year olds?
Posted by: Drosera
|
May 14, 2009 10:32 AM
Indeed, it is perfectly harmless when a cardinal considers a group consisting of millions of people as not fully human. The Spanish Inquisition never existed, right?
"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 14, 2009 10:33 AM
Luis Dias@30: I would agree with you based only on his words, but note what the question was. He was defending comments about secularists (sic) not having a full understanding of what it is to be human. He had every opportunity to be careful with his words, to say that people could find the transcendent in the National Gallery (or in the Lake District or in the Natural History Museum or at the Oval) as well as in Westminster Cathedral. He didn't take that opportunity. He let the conflation of transcendent experience and theistic religion stand.
Either he is a VERY bad communicator or he is claiming the irreligious are unable to develop those parts aesthetic and emotional parts of ourselves that (for him) religion speaks to.
Also, he needs to look up "secular". Clue: it's the set of ideas which allows stuff like Catholic churches in "protestant" England.
Posted by: craicmonkey | May 14, 2009 10:34 AM
Not fully human? I wonder then, what does the good cardinal think our role in creation is. I mean God created everything, and God has a purpose for creation, so God willfully created us half-baked humanoid life forms for some reason? Right? I'm sure the cardinal doesn't put us on the same level of "lower" life forms, what with our divinely granted intellect and all, so that rules out potential food source for the proper humans (hopefully). And seeing how God don't make junk, there must be a reason. Sigh. Once again, this is what happens when you try to take an old world, tribal outlook on the world and superimpose it on modern understandings of reality. It doesn't quite fit, and the more you stretch it, the more gaps begin to tear in the fabric until it's completely shredded and useless.
Posted by: tms | May 14, 2009 10:35 AM
Hey PZ,
Well, if you define "human" as possessing a human genome, then he's right, we're all only about 10% human
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/509
Tom
Posted by: Aquaria | May 14, 2009 10:37 AM
Argument from authority is extremely lame, Luis. Christopher Hitchens is a fine atheist, but he also supported the war in Iraq. I take anything the man says with a grain of salt. And get multiple confirmations before trusting.
Also, cite whatever the fuck it is you're trying to claim is relevant between Christopher Hitchens, the petticoated pedos, and what I said.
I've read a lot of Hitchens, and, I'm damned if I can figure out how those intersect in what he's written.
Posted by: Luis Dias | May 14, 2009 10:38 AM
Aquaria, apologies on #32 not #30 accepted.
"Transcendent" is right on the dictionary, we are talking English here:
Going beyond ordinary limits; surpassing; exceeding.
2. superior or supreme.
Even "Theology" definition doesn't get it too far off the cliff:
3. Theology. (of the Deity) transcending the universe, time, etc. Compare immanent (def. 3).
Bokay. Take that "deity" part out of it, it still is meaningful.
Or are we or aren't we a species that tries to "transcend" death? I like to think we are.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 14, 2009 10:39 AM
Well, at least atheists have hot animal sex.
What about you, Cardinal Cormack Murphy-O'Connor?
Posted by: the pro from dover | May 14, 2009 10:40 AM
Far more important than the appropriate classification of subspecies (Athiests= Homo sapiens partialis vs.Catholics= Homo sapiens trancendentalis), is the binomial nomenclature of the reappearance of the Montauk Monster. Inquiring minds want to know!
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | May 14, 2009 10:42 AM
Silly vertebrates...
Posted by: Aquaria | May 14, 2009 10:42 AM
You still don't get it, Luis. He's making assumptions about people without knowning a damned thing about them. He has zero evidence for what he's saying. He hasn't interviewed every atheist.
I'm not interested in transcending death. I accept that it's inevitable. I'll live as long as I do, and will make the most of that, and I hope it isn't forever.
Immortality would be a motherfucker.
Posted by: GilbertNSullivan
|
May 14, 2009 10:45 AM
@Luis 50
The Cardinal's proposition is that "we [humans] call [that which is transcendent] God" and that those who feel otherwise are diminished.
I doubt anyone here is without a sense of wonder at the awe and majesty of the natural world or the potential for beauty in humanity and I find his insistence that I am lacking because I don't attribute these to his god more than somewhat nauseating.
But then I'm only a 12 year old, so you'll have to explain slowly why I'm mistaken.
Posted by: Drosera
|
May 14, 2009 10:45 AM
According to Luis Dias at #50 art is
That only applies to the boring kind of art that people like you probably like.
Posted by: Luis Dias | May 14, 2009 10:46 AM
Aquaria, just because I was "defecting" PZ's opinions, I've some what been tagged as a theist pretending to be an atheist.
Yeah, it is a weak argument, but it stops true morons from going too far in their remarks.
All I tried to state and that, gasp, the bishop stated, is that anyone who hasn't the sense of the transcendent isn't a "fully human". He goes babbling on on how "transcedent" for him is "god", but he makes it clear that that is his personal opinion.
As much moronic remarks that I've read here so far, I don't exactly believe that anyone here never went sentimental with the human condition.
And if you haven't, alas, you don't really know what it really means to be human. Don't take it as an insult, you'll have plenty of time to have that experience (it's almost impossible not to have it).
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
May 14, 2009 10:47 AM
Damned straight. And proud of it.
It's your insistence that people must experience the transcendent to be "whole." That's just fucking ridiculous. Sure, they might be missing out on a great emotion, but to imagine that makes them untrustworthy or somehow incomplete is preposterous.
I enjoy music. I often admire the beauty of a Hubble photograph, and they sometimes make me wish I could wander the stars like they do in some of the movies I enjoy. But I haven't felt a transcendent moment since I was 30. I can look at "The Absinthe Drinkers" and admire Degas's skills and abilities; but the fact I don't fall down weeping is surely not a sign I am somehow uninteresting. (There are other signs for that.)
The lack of strong emotion does not indicate a lesser person, nor is it a sign of an uninteresting human being. If you believe otherwise, you are just as shallow and self-righteous as the meanest theist.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 14, 2009 10:50 AM
Luis Dias: Pull back from call everyone 12-year-olds and we might be able to work out what you are getting at. Some people have a reasonable recoil at the word "transcendent" because it is often an attempt to sneak in supernaturalism. The feelings people call "transcendent" exist and matter but what are they being said to transcend? The mundane? OK then. Natural or physical explanation? Then hold up.
If you see "transcendent" in the latter sense the cardinal is saying "embrace sky-hooks or you are deficient". In this case he can DIAFF.
It seems to me that at the very least he is being careless with conflating stuff: the numinous and the supernatural, belief in God and experience of those things he considers to divine. He's a professional public figure; whether he is guilty of dishonesty or mere sloppy thinking he deserves pulling over the coals for it
Posted by: raven | May 14, 2009 10:50 AM
The Cardinal most likely thinks the same things about the Protestants, Mormons, and fundies not to mention the other religions. He just has the good sense (so far) to shut up about it. In times past, spouting off about the untermenchens has caused bullets to fly for a decade or two.
There are True Xians and Fake Xians and they never agree on which is which.
The RCC has had trouble for decades recruiting good clerics. No one wants to be lifelong celibates in this day and age. They really should drop the (supposedly) celibate priests before they end up even more irrelevant than they already are.
Posted by: Brent Rasmussen | May 14, 2009 10:52 AM
Same thing happened in Portland, 4 years ago. A Catholic priest by the name of John Vlazny:
I think it is in the playbook or something.
Posted by: Luis Dias | May 14, 2009 10:54 AM
Drosera,
Posted by: GilbertNSullivan
|
May 14, 2009 10:55 AM
@Luis
I accept the utter finality of my death as a reality because to do otherwise is futile. It cannot be "transcended" - that's just meaningless woo... and damn strange woo at that, from someone professing to be an atheist.Posted by: Drosera
|
May 14, 2009 10:57 AM
Did zoologists ever assign a type specimen to the species Homo sapiens? Is there a skeleton in some museum that was labelled as such by Linnaeus himself? If so, I bet it wasn't that of a Catholic priest.
Posted by: Luis Dias | May 14, 2009 10:58 AM
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 14, 2009 11:02 AM
SourcePosted by: Matt Heath | May 14, 2009 11:02 AM
GilbertNSullivan wrote
EXACTLY. This is exactly the relevant point. Unless he thinks the irreligious are lacking in these things why the hell would he be saying this. The statement that makes him a bad of shite is not "If you lack a sense transcendent experience you are missing out on part of what it is to be human" it's the implied "The irreligious typically lack a sense of transcendent experience".
Imagine if he'd said the same in the context of what he felt Jews or Protestants were lacking but the RCC offered; it would not be OK.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 14, 2009 11:05 AM
On the other hand...
Posted by: Anonymous | May 14, 2009 11:07 AM
No it's better than that. It IS Linnaeus: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/who-is-the-type-specimen-of-homo-sapiens/win, huh!
Posted by: Drosera
|
May 14, 2009 11:07 AM
Luis the Real Human at #63 proclaims:
I play Beethoven sonatas and Bach fugues in my spare time. In this way I am able to come closer to the best that the human species can aspire to than you with your 'transcendent' muck. And don't call me a kid or a babe, I am neither. I am a carnivorous plant.
Posted by: Luis Dias | May 14, 2009 11:07 AM
Fuck, people won't just let me go have lunch.
Look, man. Accept your death as you like, okay? I don't. I wish I could live far longer than what I will, although that won't be possible. And it isn't meaningless woo, because if people just "accepted" death, medicine would have never evolved, isn't that even obvious?
Remember, that was the primordial argument against medicine, it was against the will of God, against the acceptance of "fate" or whatever true "meaningless woo" we've took for so long.
Quite hilariously, it was evolution itself that "created" death so soon, so that generations could evolve quicker, but that's a different thought altogether...
Posted by: Emmet, OM
|
May 14, 2009 11:08 AM
Well, it's not OK now, but back in the day, the RCC gave the words “ghetto” and “inquisition” their modern connotations by, eh, “offering” Jews and Protestants what the RCC felt they lacked.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 14, 2009 11:09 AM
#75 is me. And Sven scooped me.
Posted by: Peter | May 14, 2009 11:11 AM
Given that Murphy-O'Connor has form for shielding a paedophile priest while Archbishop of Arundel, he is a fine one to lecture on the nature of humanity.
Unless of course abused kids don't count in the humanity stakes.
Posted by: annabones | May 14, 2009 11:13 AM
By 'not fully human' he means 'highly evolved', in the sense that we must be braching out from the Homo sapiens species (lets say towards 'Homo sapiens atheisticus' perhaps?)
Clearly, he's a brilliant scientist.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 14, 2009 11:13 AM
To experience transcendental moments you dont need to kneel in a room with stain glass windows.
Indeed. There are other ways to experience the transcendent while on one's knees.
Posted by: Alex Ess | May 14, 2009 11:17 AM
Actually, I'm relieved. I mean, now that this is out in the open I don't have to hide my claws and my spooky amber irises anymore.
*pulls off gloves, pulls off sunglasses*
Posted by: GilbertNSullivan
|
May 14, 2009 11:19 AM
@Luis
Joder cabrón que te vayas ya a comer... we won't miss you I promise. Holy fuck you're dumb. You contradict yourself in consecutive sentences, assert that medicine only exists to prevent death and then claim that healing the sick is "against the will of God"? My 12 year old brain reels at the transcendent display of stupidity. No seriously dude, get some lunch: that makes zero sense in any language. OMFG... a blog about biology and atheism is SO not the place for you.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
May 14, 2009 11:20 AM
In turnabout, I don't think he's fully god, so his word means little.
He could make an argument, I suppose, that if one were lacking in "spiritual feelings" or some such thing, one is at least missing something. "Transcendent" is simply not what I'd call it, however, since that implies that we're really "getting beyond" ourselves, our minds, whatever, which would then be true of any decent hit or two of acid.
So no, I don't claim "a sense of the transcendent," because it mischaracterizes what is going on. That I know the same feelings as he does under different terms, is something I'd wager my life on.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Jack
|
May 14, 2009 11:22 AM
Interesting, isn't it, that if we deny the supposed aspect of humanity that this twat in a dress calls "the transcendent" - something for which there isn't any evidence, of course - then we become less than human. Whereas when he denies the very real and observable aspect of his humanity called "sexuality" - by taking a vow of celibacy - that's just fine.
Catholics are, I think, the most stupid and offensive of all the many foul varieties of Christian.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 14, 2009 11:23 AM
MAJeff wins.
Luis Dias: I hope you enjoyed your lunch. You are talking past everyone and everyone is talking past you. I think you are talking about "transcending" things by cranes (in Dennett-speak); a sense of aesthetics, a desire to leave things different to you found them. "Transcendent" is very easily read as meaning "sky hook"; something completely other to nature.
In any case, however tame a version of "transcendent" you want to use, the question remains of why O'Connor is talking about a lack of it in response to a question about "secularists".
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 14, 2009 11:27 AM
"Quite hilariously, it was evolution itself that "created" death so soon, so that generations could evolve quicker" - Luis Dias
Where did you come by that particular piece of nonsense? Pleiotropy adequately explains sensescence; and all organisms have elaborate mechanisms for preventing mutation and thus minimising the potential pace of evolutionary change.
Posted by: Drosera
|
May 14, 2009 11:27 AM
Thanks Sven and Matt.
Strictly speaking, Linnaeus can only be the type of Homo sapiens if Stearn specifically designated either the preserved remains of Linnaeus or an image of Linnaeus as the type. And Cope can't be called a lectotype, since Linnaeus did not see his remains (we know that because Linnaeus died before Cope was born), but at best a neotype. So the matter is probably still not entirely settled, I would guess.
Posted by: E.V. | May 14, 2009 11:33 AM
Oh, I've had many religious experiences, until I realized I could get the same chills and overwhelming sense of awe through Grotowski's experimental theater techniques (as well as a few pharmaceuticals). Attributing those experiences to supernatural forces is where it all falls apart, but some people just have to believe there is a limitless supply of coins waiting to be pulled out from behind their ears by some uncanny magician.
Posted by: netjaeger | May 14, 2009 11:33 AM
The logic of the cardinal appears to be part of a very long running pattern of dehumanization of others.
It is the same twists that provided, for example, the Inter Caetera Bull of 1493.
Posted by: truthspeaker | May 14, 2009 11:35 AM
And we're saying that that's a moronic thing to say. Some humans don't get much out of art and don't have much a sense of trancsendence. They're not any less human or, in my experience, any less trustworthy.
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | May 14, 2009 11:38 AM
Hmmm Drosera is correct about lecto- vs. neotype.
Then there's this (from 'kipedia):
...which I take to mean that there has never been and will never be a valid type specimen of our species. Kind of a shame.
Posted by: BAllanJ | May 14, 2009 11:40 AM
I would like to mention here that I believe that anyone who has not appreciated the butterscotch pie recipe that I adapted from my grandmother's, is not fully human. I have served this to many people... the entire human race actually (by definition... see above)
Posted by: raven | May 14, 2009 11:40 AM
This is arguable and there are many contenders for wackiest and most malevolent xian cults. I would go with the fundie Death Cultists who have turned the religion into its opposite.
The vast majority of catholics pay little or no attention to the priests any more. They really have nothing relevant to say to 21st century people or much to offer them.. There is a vast gap between the laity and the clergy. One could make the case that the RCC is becoming sensescent like its aging leaders, very old men getting older.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 14, 2009 11:46 AM
Actually having read some other comments I want to modify what I said @73: "If you lack a sense transcendent experience you are missing out on part of what it is to be human" AND the implied "The irreligious typically lack a sense of transcendent experience" are both shitty views. No one group has a monopoly on wonder and have a less developed sense of wonder doesn't make you any less human.
Posted by: nmcvaugh
|
May 14, 2009 11:48 AM
Defining an out group to be "less than human" is a common practice in religion. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the holocaust. Iran/Iraq wars, "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans, Africa, Sri Lanka. You all know the list. Alas, using such a mindset to justify oppression and murder is in the end "all too human." Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor is a shining example of what is wrong with religion.
Posted by: DGKnipfer | May 14, 2009 11:49 AM
@ BAllanJ (#94),
So what your saying is that people who are alergic to butterscotch can never truly be human? What kind of person are you, you evil butterscotch pie pusher?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 14, 2009 11:52 AM
Exactly.
Posted by: Prof. Henry Armitage
|
May 14, 2009 11:58 AM
I love gardening too.Posted by: Happy Tentacles
|
May 14, 2009 11:58 AM
The Cardinal sounds frightened and bewildered. He doesn't understand the non-indoctrinated godless view of the universe, and it scares him. Hence the name-calling.
Meanwhile, sign the petition against his being given a peerage!
Posted by: Eronarn | May 14, 2009 12:02 PM
There is a definite, fundamental, transcendental experience common to all humans whether Christians or atheists or scientists or uneducated hicks: LSD.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 14, 2009 12:03 PM
as the status and identity of H. sapiens is not questioned, there is no exceptional need for clarification - Sven diMilo
But maybe the man in the silly dress has just provided that exceptional need ;-)
Posted by: Nick | May 14, 2009 12:05 PM
I love the YouTube comment by valdemarsquelch: "Great. I've been classed as subhuman by a sinister, secretive organisation of blokes in weird uniforms, led by a German who thinks he's infallible. That always ends well."
Posted by: gutteringdawn | May 14, 2009 12:14 PM
Another requirement to be fully human:
You must love to watch sports!
Posted by: Larry | May 14, 2009 12:16 PM
So what does the cardinal consider his priests that bugger altar boys to be?
Posted by: Sastra
|
May 14, 2009 12:18 PM
Matt Heath #65 wrote:
Yes: the word "transcendent" is like the word "spiritual." Possible meanings run from purely secular to purely religious, and most of the religious tend to trade on this ambiguity so they can sneak supernatural beliefs into the feelings of joy and wonder, and pretend its all a package deal. That's similar to the way people who promote nonsense like homeopathy and reiki start off by explaining that alternative medicine involves herbal remedies, exercise, and good nutrition. They all want an easy ride to acceptance by hopping onto the back of what's vaguely similar, and easily accepted.
Listening to the Cardinal's little speech, though, I think he makes it pretty clear that he doesn't mean that he's only talking about 'transcendent' as 'sense of wonder and joy.' No, he keeps referring to atheists specifically, and he means belief in the supernatural. People who don't want to believe that the universe is, in some critical way, like a person or mind, and imbued with values, are less like persons themselves.
Rick L #40 wrote:
Very well put. I will grant that religious people can feel just as deeply as atheists. But they aren't thinking as deeply on this particular factual issue. They're being sloppy, and coasting on intuitions.
Note the difference though in how each side of the argument places the person on the other side. We think the religious are mistaken about a particular matter because they've not reasoned well on the subject, and taken everything into account. Religion ought to be evaluated the same way we evaluate science.
They, on the other hand, think the atheists are wrong because atheists lack a basic ability to feel, appreciate, and connect. Religion ought to be considered the same way we consider love or aesthetics.
That's a rather chilling difference, there. The implications in that second approach cut off the common ground with those who disagree, in a way that the first approach does not.
Posted by: Ajuydog | May 14, 2009 12:24 PM
my tuppence worth
I interpret what the cardinal is saying like this:
atheists are missing out on an experience that all people could enjoy
I do not think he means that aetheists are Untermenschen
if the former interpretation is correct then he is has merely chosen his words poorly and not understood that we can enjoy transcendent experiences (natural ones of course, in the artistic sense)
Posted by: Anonymous | May 14, 2009 12:25 PM
@Sastra #107
Beautiful summation.
Posted by: hje | May 14, 2009 12:27 PM
Idiot yes, but he's a snappy dresser!
Posted by: No One of Consequence | May 14, 2009 12:27 PM
So a theist having sex with an atheist would be what? Bestiality?
Posted by: Ajuydog | May 14, 2009 12:27 PM
my tuppence worth
I interpret what the cardinal is saying like this:
atheists are missing out on an experience that all people could enjoy
I do not think he means that aetheists are Untermenschen
if the former interpretation is correct then he is has merely chosen his words poorly and not understood that we can enjoy transcendent experiences (natural ones of course, in the artistic sense)
Posted by: Drosera
|
May 14, 2009 12:29 PM
A modest proposal: we could pickle the cardinal in a huge jar with formalin and declare him the type of a different species of hominid.
Homo virginalis?
Homo immaculatus?
Homo cruciatus?
Posted by: drjones | May 14, 2009 12:29 PM
Does this mean its OK to abort atheist fetuses?
Posted by: DuckPhup | May 14, 2009 12:33 PM
Are you sure about that? I'm thinkin' sub-species here... homo sapiens rationalis (as stated somewhere above)... and then Murphy-O'Connor being classified as homo sapiens dumbassticus (theists in-general) or homo sapiens moronicus (creotards), depending upon how whacked-out he actually is.
Posted by: Drosera
|
May 14, 2009 12:36 PM
Ajuydog at #112, read what Sastra wrote at #107 (well put Sastra). Your tuppence worth is worth even less than tuppence.
Posted by: Logicel | May 14, 2009 12:39 PM
I regard transcendence as being greatly over-rated, whether religious or secular. And in a great part, it is just a form of escape from being finite mortals. I have left it and its search on the wayside after grappling with its siren call for many decades--it is the ultimate 'the grass is greener on the other side'viewpoint.
I am so much happier, fulfilled, and at peace because I am now focused on being engaged with life. Life is so short, why would anyone actively seek to transcend it! Live it to the fullest (including the appreciation of creative expression, whether it has a scientific or artistic basis) as our lives have an exceedingly short due date.
And the Cardinal is mistaken that his religious focus does anything but exclude him from ever even having a glance at the immensity of the universe because his religion keeps his human brain and emotions stale and tiny.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 14, 2009 12:39 PM
Ajuydog@112: I agree that could well be what he's meaning. Note, though, that this is the most charitable possible interpretation and it still means he is sufficiently lacking in empathy that he doesn't see that atheists are people like any others, with the same capacities for deep, numinous experience. That is quite bad enough.
Posted by: puseaus | May 14, 2009 12:42 PM
Could he only give us a hint of how human we are, say like 75%. And what is the acceptable limit?
Posted by: Anonymous | May 14, 2009 12:43 PM
Knockgoats #103
But it's a beautiful dress. Black with red trim and buttons. And the cummerbund is to die for.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 14, 2009 12:46 PM
Posted by: Anonymous | May 14, 2009 12:47 PM
So you are not fully human unless you are a catlickin' pedophile?
Thanks, I prefer my atheistic sub-humanness were spirits come in bottles, hopefully marked The Glenlivet, Jägermeister, Campari, Linje Akevit, or Stolichnaya.
Enjoyed in moderation that beats any one-way talk with the ceiling.
Thinking of it, - most things beat talking with the ceiling.
Posted by: Keenacat | May 14, 2009 12:49 PM
Yikes! Blockquote fail.
Well, as the cardinal himself isn't missing out on anything, we could safely assume he is fully hu...
What? Celibate?
Ummm... Never mind, then.
Posted by: kamaka | May 14, 2009 12:51 PM
Logicel @ 117
Yep. And his smug, holier-than-thou attitude excludes him from ever truly loving anyone/anything.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 14, 2009 12:51 PM
Awesome! I'm going to use the little 't' transcendence argument when Mom yells at me for sitting in the basement watching old movies and smoking pot all day.
"But Mom, I'm only becoming fully human! Cardinal Whatsizname said so, and he's a--hey, do you think nail clippers could clip nails, like the construction kind?! We should totally do an experiment, dude."
Posted by: puseaus | May 14, 2009 12:51 PM
Just had a delicious sweet, layered cracker, feeling very (almost irrationally) human right now. Must be an illusion then.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 14, 2009 12:53 PM
Except of course his nice shinny red Prada shoes.
He truly does love those.
Posted by: MrQhuest | May 14, 2009 12:54 PM
I hate to Godwin myself, but did we not hear very similar rhetoric in the 1930's? I find this to be the most horrible thing I have ever heard. Dress or not, this is not the least bit funny, this is frightening.
Posted by: Chris Davis
|
May 14, 2009 12:54 PM
And yet, if I was to demonstrate my species by successfully mating with another human, Cardinal O'Blimey wouldn't want to watch, and would no doubt get extremely upset if I terminated the products of the conceptional demo.
I, on the other hand, would happily witness the Cardinal's own attempts to mate with a human, something he has thus far apparently failed to do. Who's human, Murph?
Posted by: Brian | May 14, 2009 12:56 PM
If their perfect god created me and I am flawed (as a non-believer) enough to not be fully human, doesn't that throw a wrench in the whole perfect gd creation thing?
Posted by: revjimbob | May 14, 2009 12:57 PM
British citizens can sign the following petition at:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/nocormacpeerage/
It is reported that the Government is considering bestowing a peerage on Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster and head of the Roman Catholic Church in England. In light of the 'paedophile priest' scandals in his Church's recent past and his appalling leadership failures in dealing with these matters, Murphy O'Connor has demonstrated himself to be unfit to take any place in Parliament and should NOT be given such a reward.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 14, 2009 12:58 PM
WRONG!
He does think Jesus was completely human – and completely divine! Theology is not only weirder than we suppose, it's weirder than we can suppose.
Why don't you comment more often? You'd get a Molly nomination.
Poetry?
You dare compare poetry to the Hubble Deep Fields, complete with Einstein rings and all!?!
Well, yeah, maybe Cuttlefish. But apart from that, you should learn about orders of magnitude.
Then why do you say "transcendent" instead of simply "sentimental"? And why do you call art "transcendent"? You make it all sound way too much like woo.
Procyon lotor.
The very concept of "type" is younger than the good man. To him everything was just obvious.
"Yes, but we're working on it."
– Richard Dawkins
It's not merely fascinating, you see. It's interesting! I get the impression you're missing out on half of the fun! :-)
Wrong. Death is a byproduct: there's a balance between the energy you can spend on reproduction and repair at the same time. Therefore the repair processes aren't perfect.
And that's also why there are exceptions. The studies are – surprise, surprise – still ongoing, but it's possible that turtles die only by accident, disease, or predation. They can afford that because they avoid a lot of damage in the first place.
And when they fail, the outcome is cancer. That's what it's called when you evolve.
Sauropsids are way cooler anyway. Well, most of them.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 14, 2009 1:04 PM
Remember everyone: Richard Dawkins is humourless.Posted by: Hurin | May 14, 2009 1:08 PM
To be honest I couldn't care less. Organized religion only serves to make people docile and easy to govern. If behaving like an unthinking philosophical miscarriage is what makes someone "fully human" then I wholeheartedly embrace my inhumanity.
Posted by: Eating Cannibal | May 14, 2009 1:12 PM
"Human beings must have a sense of the transcendent, and must search for god."
And if my search comes up empty, am I still non-human? I motion that my willingness to search in the first place designates me at least half-human. I'll settle for 25%.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | May 14, 2009 1:14 PM
At some point in my mid thirties, while studying physics and cosmology, I finally made the connection between biology and the chemistry that underlies it. This was because I finally understood that chemistry is dictated by physics which is itself dictated by the specific qualities of the universe which were "locked in" a very small fraction of a second after the Big Bang.
That connection started a chain reaction of firing neurons that created in my mind a sense of timelessness, the notion that my existence is the result of an unbroken chain of events leading back to the timeless moment of creation. And I saw that the entire future course of the universe will forever bear the mark, however faint, of my presence in it here and now.
Now, that was a transcendent moment! Actually, I've felt significantly more human ever since.
There was also that one time with my ex-wife . . .
Posted by: Eating Cannibaling | May 14, 2009 1:15 PM
"Human beings must have a sense of the transcendent, and must search for god."
And if my search comes up empty, am I still non-human? I motion that my willingness to search in the first place designates me at least half-human. I'll settle for 25%.
Posted by: BAllanJ | May 14, 2009 1:18 PM
DGKnipfer @ 98
...allow me to introduce you to the holy epi-pen....
(I have made "the pie" in a gluten-free version... it's not like I'm RCC)
Posted by: Anonymous | May 14, 2009 1:24 PM
Ugh, Luis, where is this from, - the bible?
Repeat 100 times: Evolution is not an entity, evolution is not . . .
Posted by: Gilgamesh | May 14, 2009 1:25 PM
Labeling a subgroup less than human is a prelude to killing them.
Remember, in recent southern history, all the pious white folk proudly having their pictures taken in the carnival atmosphere of a black lynching.
Hear the sneering way theists say; "Atheist" and remember Germans labeled as "krauts" and Japanese called "japs & nips" during WWII; Vietnamese being labeled as "gooks"; and the current substitution of "towel head" for Arab.
The commandment; "Tho shall not kill" is a stumbling block for Theists going to war. Convincing the pious warrior their enemy is not human relieves that restriction.
We Atheists should loudly denounce this insidious propaganda.
Posted by: SASnSA
|
May 14, 2009 1:33 PM
It sounds almost as if he wants to define us as less than human so that he doesn't have to treat us as human, or pay attention to our human rights.
Posted by: shonny
|
May 14, 2009 1:44 PM
Ugh, fucking TypeKey thing lives a life of its own, refusing to log in automatically.
But at least the blockquote works when treated gently.
And catlicking sux!
Posted by: Mark | May 14, 2009 1:49 PM
The good Cardinal simply doesn't want anyone to know he doesn't believe in god.
Posted by: Thomas Winwood
|
May 14, 2009 1:53 PM
I must say I dislike the comments made earlier in the thread about "having a sense of the transcendent" - I don't have a sense of the transcendent, since that implies exactly the kind of beyond-that-which-we-can-perceive woo the religiotards want us to believe.
I experience a sense of awe when I perceive awesome things. That's all that it is. No transcendency here.
Posted by: kamaka | May 14, 2009 2:02 PM
Just what is transcendent about this guy's made-up superstitious nonsense anyway? Angry sky-gods, evil entities, eternal damnation, the book of lies, original sin, human sacrifice and weekly cannibalism, I fail to see anything pleasant, much less transcendent, in any of it. Selling eternity in heaven is about money and power and is in no way enlightening.
This jerk wouldn't know transcendent if it whacked him upside the head.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | May 14, 2009 2:09 PM
Anthony Powell voiced a similar sentiment, that atheists aren't human.
Funny, thought that a common biology was used for the definition in the 1st place, & behavior was secondary.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | May 14, 2009 2:10 PM
Well, Thomas, the feeling that I described at #136 was most definitely one of transcending temporal and spatial limitations. I'm sure that the feeling was merely my brain's attempt to come to terms with what was, for me, a completely novel experience for which I had no real world model. It was in fact my real world model undergoing a substantial increase in scope that caused my feeling of expansion.
I cannot recreate the feeling simply by playing about with my new, super-sized model, but at the time, I was deeply moved and excited. I found it to be a novel and powerful understanding and for a few days I was quite distracted by it.
By now, the feeling has receded into the background warp and weave of my mental model of the cosmos. I've become as used to it as I am to the rug on the floor. But like the rug, it is still comfortable to walk about on and I'm glad I have it.
Your mileage may vary.
Posted by: Ron Hager | May 14, 2009 2:18 PM
I agree with #140. Branding atheists as non-human is essentially providing an excuse for murdering them. But then religions of all varieties have consistently murdered those they opposed. They know no other way to act! His is a very deliberate and Catholic way of inciting his followers to murder.
Posted by: Kate | May 14, 2009 2:36 PM
Posted by: Chris Davis | May 14, 2009 12:54 PM
And yet, if I was to demonstrate my species by successfully mating with another human, Cardinal O'Blimey wouldn't want to watch, and would no doubt get extremely upset if I terminated the products of the conceptional demo.
I'll watch, I'll watch! So...what are you planning to do that'll inspire a sense of awe and transencence in me, my popcorn and the Guiness?
Posted by: Xenithrys | May 14, 2009 2:39 PM
As a taxonomist, this priest's comment offends me. As a rule of thumb, we identify an individual as a member of a species by morphology -- looks like a human, probably is a human. But the really strong test is ability to breed successfully with other members of the species. So how could the cardinal prove he belongs to Homo sapiens? He'd have to mate with one. OTOH, I suppose there are plenty of atheists among non-humans; I don't think either of my cats believes in a god.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
May 14, 2009 3:05 PM
The Cardinal and his followers gather into groups to worship and admire an invisible magic man, the ultimate and most powerful dominate alpha-male that the imagination can contain. They stroke him and praise him, sing songs to him and weep over him and engage in rituals to curry his favor.
Being “fully human” is remarkably similar to behaving like an ape, isn’t it? Just saying.
Moggie #27
I bet Noah was really pissed off about having two atheists on the ark, complaining about the weather the whole time.
Nice.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
May 14, 2009 3:09 PM
Perhaps I should have said "Behaving like most other species of apes"?
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
May 14, 2009 3:10 PM
And here I thought species membership was a matter of biology! Silly me.
This is like claiming that people who don't have a "proper" appreciation of mathematics, or music, or gourmet cooking, aren't human.
Posted by: kevinj | May 14, 2009 3:11 PM
i wonder if covering up for paedophile priests and caring more about the churches reputation rather than the victims count as transcendence.
Posted by: skully knowles | May 14, 2009 3:32 PM
This is funny, because I sometimes think of religious believers as not fully human because they lack full self awareness. Unaware of the reasons they believe (indoctrination, cognitive bias, fear), unaware that belief in a personal god exemplifies overweening selfishness, not humility. Unaware of how stupid they look for publicly expressing their beliefs instead of hiding them as anybody with a glimmer of self-consciousness who believes in something bizarre would do. Unaware of how bigotted they are when they vote against equal rights.
Posted by: Sastra
|
May 14, 2009 3:39 PM
I doubt very much that the Cardinal was trying to de-humanize atheists in order to justify killing them. I think he was much more focused on trying to justify faith to the faithful, and keep them in the fold.
A lot of arguments for believing in God aren't rational arguments with premises and conclusion, they're inducements, or bribes, or even a kind of cajoling. Those grand feelings you have, do you think they're just ordinary feelings such as an animal might have? They don't feel that way, do they? Wouldn't you feel better if they were a special way you have of recognizing that you are special to the universe, and something "more" than just atoms and chemicals? A spiritual essence, perhaps?
Of course you would, and of course you are! So don't pay attention to reasonable arguments that treat your feelings as if they weren't critically important. Those arguments could only come from someone without such feelings.
But do remember, it's facts -->faith -->feelings. The religious aren't driven by their feelings. That's what drives atheists, to avoid God.
No, it doesn't have to be consistent. Truthiness has its own logic.
Posted by: Drosera
|
May 14, 2009 3:57 PM
David Marjanović @132,
Nevertheless, thousands of specimens labelled by Linnaeus himself have subsequently become the types of the scientific names that he attached to them. Many can be seen online here. Without these types it would often have been almost impossible to known for sure to which species his usually very brief descriptions applied.
Posted by: ZK
|
May 14, 2009 4:17 PM
If I'm not human then why the fuck am I paying tax?
Oh, hang on, the Cardinal works for an organisation that doesn't have to pay tax... ah... so this is some sort of evil plot by the humans to make us non-humans pay for their way of life, is it?
What a shitbag.
Posted by: DevisDog2 | May 14, 2009 4:32 PM
Whenever I hear comments like these it always reminds me of Ambrose Bierce from his "Devil's Dictionary"
Religion; The Daughter of Hope and Fear trying to explain to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable"
P.S. I love this web site
P.P.S. I wanna PZ-T
Cheers
A "Recovered" Catholic
Paul
Posted by: Anton Mates | May 14, 2009 4:32 PM
On the plus side, this is a bold step toward a pro-choice Catholic Church! After all, a human embryo is doing even less thinking about god and striving toward the transcendent than an adult atheist, thus it must not be human at all...
Posted by: Eric Paulsen | May 14, 2009 4:56 PM
Feh. The old queen's two sticks short of a crucifix. I hope he meant not 'spiritually' human because DNA can prove otherwise.
Posted by: woodsong | May 14, 2009 5:01 PM
Xenithrys:
Your cats believe they ARE gods, or at least are descended from one....thank the Eqyptians for that! You are simply their ill-trained slave. At least, that's what my cat thinks.
As for cat-licks: I'd rather be licked by a cat than a dog!
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | May 14, 2009 5:03 PM
Can a foetus experience transcendence? Or a young baby? I don't think so - and by that logic Mr Murphy-O'Connor judges them to be not fully human. Which seems at odds with his industry's views on abortion.
Posted by: woodsong | May 14, 2009 5:07 PM
But on topic:
While I have a very well-developed sense of wonder, I have no desire whatsoever to be counted in the same species as those who molest children. Those who protect molesters are even more disgusting. If he and his begowned hypocrites are human, I'll be feline, thank you very much!
Posted by: Drosera
|
May 14, 2009 5:18 PM
Linnaeus actually described a second species of Homo, which he called H. troglodytes ("cave-dwelling man"). Although it is now believed that this refers to the chimpanzee (wiki reference), we should perhaps not entirely discredit the idea that his description may have been based on a muddled eyewitness account of a particularly hairy catholic monk who lived in a cave. Making this small conceptual leap I herewith declare Cardinal Cormack Murphy-O’Connor to be a representative of the species Homo troglodytes.
Posted by: Drosera
|
May 14, 2009 5:20 PM
Linnaeus actually described a second species of Homo, which he called H. troglodytes ("cave-dwelling man"). Although it is now believed that this refers to the chimpanzee (wiki reference), we should perhaps not entirely discredit the idea that his description may have been based on a muddled eyewitness account of a particularly hairy catholic monk who lived in a cave. Making this small conceptual leap I herewith declare Cardinal Cormack Murphy-O’Connor to be a representative of the species Homo troglodytes.
Posted by: Lynna | May 14, 2009 5:22 PM
So now I'm not a true citizen of the United States (not an Amareuhkun) *and* not a human being?
Posted by: strangebrew | May 14, 2009 5:41 PM
They are getting extremely desperate in their death throes.
Insults like that only come from the mouths of the hysterical.
And he is not misquoted...it is not out of context and he 'believes' he is right...well we see where his 'belief 'gets him... a nasty little bit of sticky oozing crud on the sole of humanity...not worthy of life... just scrape it off and move on...
I can say that because apparently I am not human ;-)
The more they claim such batty and petulant nonsense the quicker their demise...so what...
So I wonder if Benny baby agrees with his troll?
Posted by: deang | May 14, 2009 5:45 PM
The idea that "religion is a human universal" is a strange one, especially since by religion they mean the few major religions that originated in various places in Asia. Looked at over the entire existence of humans, most humans had no religion of the kind promoted by today's religious proponents. Even at the time that Judaism and Christianity were being formed, two to three thousand years ago, most people in the world maybe had rituals revolving around natural cycles but very few believed in the magnified humans that people in parts of Asia at the time thought of as gods. So does that mean that most humans throughout history haven't been fully human?
Posted by: chuko | May 14, 2009 6:18 PM
I'd've said that it's the extent of our rational faculty that differentiates us from other animals, so the failure to use it would make one less than human.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 14, 2009 6:21 PM
Jesus and Mo consider this topic.
Posted by: Kel | May 14, 2009 6:24 PM
Maybe he thinks being an idiot is part of the human experience. If that's the case then alcohol makes a great substitute for religion... though I feel sorry for the drunken religionists ;)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 14, 2009 6:27 PM
I'll drink to that. Hic.Posted by: smellyoldgit
|
May 14, 2009 6:36 PM
Difficult to imagine how this tool became our 43rd Shitlord of the Week over at the Raving Atheists!
Wot a jerk.
Posted by: Arakiba | May 14, 2009 7:07 PM
Wait, so people who don't believe in God aren't fully human? But don't they think women aren't fully human either? Before long there won't be any humans left!
Posted by: Josh
|
May 14, 2009 7:15 PM
Offhand, I don't know of any taxonomic issue preventing someone from going out and designating a neotype for humans. I'm actually kind of surprised some Bakker-like individual hasn't taken another stab at it.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 14, 2009 7:32 PM
Not just any God, but Jesus/YHWH/Holy Gofer. Makes you wonder why God waited so long to send Jesus, the Humanmaker™. Those poor, poor BC-living sumbitches.
Posted by: SC, OM | May 14, 2009 7:34 PM
Hi from my new computer! How excited am I?!
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 14, 2009 7:48 PM
Eleven? Eleven excited?
Congrats on the new machine!
Posted by: SC, OM | May 14, 2009 7:59 PM
Thanks, Brownian!
Posted by: vincent | May 14, 2009 7:59 PM
I think you are dishonest in the interpretation of what that guy said. When hearing we are not fully human we can be offended, but when listening to the full text, you can understand that atheist are not fully human, not in the sense they are inferiors, but in the sense they do not use their full capacities (according to him). It is no more offensive than saying that someone who decides to live without never ever moving his left arm does not use his full abilities. Of course if we were to refer to an imaginary left arm that would be stupid, but still not offensive.
Posted by: Katkinkate | May 14, 2009 8:00 PM
Posted by: Eurosid @ 14 " "I wonder what we should label our species? Homo rationalis?"
I like it. Or, maybe Homo Logicus?"
Actually we can't be a new species, as the ability to interbreed between varieties and produce viable offspring is still intact. Rather we are a subspecies within the Homo sapiens species complex. We could be Homo sapiens rationalis and they could be Homo sapiens deis.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 14, 2009 8:13 PM
Since Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor is a professional virgin and doesn't use his pee-pee for anything but peeing, then according to this interpretation the Murf isn't fully human either.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 14, 2009 8:14 PM
Hi from my new computer! How excited am I?!
She can finally get youtube?!?!?!?!?!
Posted by: MadScientist
|
May 14, 2009 8:17 PM
That's funny; I always thought the catlick priests weren't human: deny human sexuality, denounce homosexuals as 'not natural', rape the altar boys and choir girls. That's some worthless asshole of a god they must worship.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 14, 2009 8:28 PM
SC has a new computer? I am sooooooo jealous. Congratulations. And have some fun with it.
Posted by: kamaka | May 14, 2009 8:32 PM
Yah, it's because of his arrogant stance the offence is taken.
He peddles superstition and woo as if it's some kind improvement in the human condition. And worse, that some transcendent state is available through believing his nonsense, and those who don't buy into it are somehow missing out on something important that keeps them from rising to a fully human state.
This from an alleged celibate who most likely (given his cardinal status) is eyeball deep in the pedophile hiding scandal.
He knows nothing of transcendent states. He doesn't want people to rise to their full capacities. He just wants people's money for his filthy, evil Vatican.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 14, 2009 8:38 PM
So whatcha get? The technogeek in me wants to know.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 14, 2009 8:57 PM
*pops in a looks around*
SC has a new computer! Yay!
*trumpets blare*
*ticker tape is thrown*
*fireworks are...
...
Wait. That means she's even more powerful...
uh oh.
Posted by: SC, OM | May 14, 2009 9:06 PM
Thanks, guys.
[paranoia]
Is there any security risk if I post it?
[/paranoia]
:) Right now, I'm drained. Wouldn't have gone out in today's weather had I not needed it so badly. The wind actually broke my umbrella (which wasn't doing much good anyway). Miserable.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 14, 2009 9:10 PM
Well, if you didn't live in the great saturated north, these things wouldn't happen.
Posted by: kamaka | May 14, 2009 9:13 PM
Is there any security risk if I post it?
Apparently, you're not using a linux OS.
Posted by: SC, OM | May 14, 2009 9:18 PM
Tell me about it. I'm hoping it'll be nicer by the end of the month...
Posted by: Sastra
|
May 14, 2009 9:21 PM
Congrats on the new computer, SC! I hope it's a nice one.
Mine is beige, and some black. Maybe you got the same kind.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 14, 2009 9:31 PM
I suspect that it'll be a lot nicer...*
_________________
*Of course no amount of nicer will save you from the damn black flies...
Posted by: Cowcakes | May 14, 2009 9:34 PM
Instead of us being not quite human I think that we are like the small boy in the tale of The Emperors New Clothes. Followers of religion think that he looks resplendent, and the Atheists and Agnostics of the world see the Emperors naked reality.
Posted by: SC, OM | May 14, 2009 9:38 PM
Thanks, Sastra!
*continues to fade*
Good night, everyone!
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 14, 2009 9:51 PM
No.
Yup.
:-)
Posted by: Anonymous | May 14, 2009 10:15 PM
This one had me laughing:
Polish monk (yes, MONK) as the title puts it, "publishes sex guide for couples to spice up life":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8049853.stm
Yeah, those monks are really into that kinky tantric stuff. Who better to learn sex from than a monk? Well, if you like altar boys that is.
Posted by: Carlie | May 14, 2009 10:15 PM
Congrats, SC!
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 14, 2009 10:24 PM
A sex-monk !
Posted by: John S. Wilkins
|
May 14, 2009 10:26 PM
Typical, really. I post the video and PZ gets 200 responses :-)
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 14, 2009 10:29 PM
Hi John,how's Sydney treating you?
You got 28 comments,thats not bad either !
:-)
Posted by: kamaka | May 14, 2009 11:20 PM
Rorschash @ 201
Hahaha, the monk seems ok to me, though where he finds his insights into sexual experience is a "mystery". He's not clueless by any means. Some piece of work.
No way has he been celibate.
Posted by: automandc | May 14, 2009 11:38 PM
How can you claim to "see through superstition" while simultaneously acknowledging "good fortune"? Whence comes good or bad "fortune"? Can one empirically measure it?
Posted by: bluescat48
|
May 15, 2009 12:15 AM
It seems to me that the cardinal is not fully human, he seems to be missing an important part of the anatomy, the brain.
Posted by: T_U_T | May 15, 2009 2:58 AM
A-the-ists are skin jobs !
A-the-ists are skin jobs !
Ne-ne-ne-ne-ne!
A-the-ists are skin jobs !
/poe
Posted by: revatheist | May 15, 2009 3:54 AM
I found this clip on Atheist Media Blog before I saw it here and gave my take on it on my blog: http://atheistgravy.blogspot.com/
I know now why the fundies never listen to us and why we're so tasty!
Posted by: Butterbean | May 15, 2009 4:16 AM
Oh dear. A guy who shields paedophiles from the law thinks I'm subhuman? It's fucking mutual.
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | May 15, 2009 4:19 AM
Of course I'm not fully human, I'm a teapot.
So I do not have to worry about heaven, or hell.
Of course, if I was a toaster, I would have to worry about silicon heaven.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-ndSWYKDOg
Posted by: MattB242 | May 15, 2009 5:00 AM
The sense of ‘transcendence’ is very probably something that the wetware we have for planning gazelle hunts and deciding whether that brownish lump over there is a lion or a pile of rocks does when it’s bored.
The trick, of course is to know this and still value it and seek it out, but one of the many problems with most religion is that it seems to be founded on a hatred of the human body. We should pity the Cardinal – and anyone else who finds their own biology so icky and vile that they can’t bear to ascribe intrinsic value to it in itself. Anyone ever noticed how clean, white and above all DRY these people’s ‘heavens’ always seems to be?
Posted by: amhovgaard | May 15, 2009 7:23 AM
Of course I have a sense of transcendence. In fact, sometimes it gets really, really intense. Increasing my anti-convulsant dosage usually takes care of that problem.
Posted by: John
|
May 15, 2009 9:22 AM
Now the cardinal has to explain the status of new borns and young children with no sence of the transcendence. I for one am glad I have not been assemblated into the Roman Catholic Collective.
Posted by: Evolved Dolly | May 15, 2009 9:35 AM
He's right, I am an 'unholy' sheep/country singer hybrid...
Humans are boring anyway, they can't sing 9 to 5 whilst knitting their own fleece.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD
|
May 15, 2009 11:17 AM
Not fully human and proud of it, at least if him and his church's lies about condoms and the protecting of raping priests are examples of what it is to be human.
Oh and for those of you defending him or thinking we have misinterpreted what he means, I suggest you look for other musings by him about atheists and the danger he thinks they represent to society. Living in the UK I suffer his offensive prattling far too often.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 15, 2009 11:58 AM
From random. :-|
Posted by: Polyester Mather DD | May 15, 2009 12:21 PM
166:
What's all this about chimps, Drosera?
Spam Trollgobytes is a Microsoft patent attorney who moonlights in insurance ads.
Posted by: aDNAn | May 15, 2009 2:46 PM
Does this mean I can no longer talk about my research on the human genome? I'll bet that a fair number of people whose genome was sequenced are atheists (Craig Venter, Jim Watson - heck, those guys likely worship themselves, and you can only have one God).
Damn (I mean, "negative selection!"), there are probably atheists among the donors to the public human genome project and to all the SNP studies. All these data are contaminated with not-fully-human DNA!!! Does this mean that I'm really dabbling in comparative genomics when I study these data sets? I'm going to have to issue a lot of corrigenda...
Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing
|
May 15, 2009 3:17 PM
If belief in demons is the standard for being fully human, then Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor can keep his "full humanity"; I want no part of it.
Posted by: Drosera
|
May 15, 2009 3:40 PM
#217,
What have you been smoking?
Posted by: Gabby | May 20, 2009 8:53 PM
I'm better than human- I'm a Vulcan. XD
Just kidding, but seriously, if not believing in Sky-Daddy who tells his "messenger of God" to go to Africa and tell people that condoms and safe sex are TEH EBIL DEVIL-THINGIES...
I'd rather be a Vulcan. Humanity, thanks for the offer, but I prefer logic over stupidity.
Posted by: Gary Williams | June 4, 2009 11:27 AM
I think it is only an antiquated conception of consciousness that prevents us from taking seriously the notion that the atheist actually experiences the world differently than a Christian. Cognitive science has shown that narratives play an integral role in shaping our basic perceptual experience, so why is it hard to accept that religion makes you literally see the world differently than the more concrete naturalist? Losing our "transcendence" is only an illustration of the evolution of consciousness in light of shifting cultural narratives, which intimately frame our self-interpretations.
Posted by: Maiya | June 12, 2009 2:32 AM
Hmmmm...be Christian, and believe that the sky-ghost will smite me if I don't sell my as-yet-unborn daughter as a slave, or if I eat fish--or be athiest, and subhuman...
bai-bai human race!