Pharyngula

Posted by: cwagar | October 20, 2009 11:46 AM

Should have gone with the bikini shot if that's your aim.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 20, 2009 11:49 AM

It'll even get you debates with creationists, and emails trying to save your soul. How great is that?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 20, 2009 11:55 AM

Life of Brian?

"OK, I am the Messiah…"

Posted by: Bob L | October 20, 2009 12:03 PM

You're not there already with your trophy wife and designer clothes?

Posted by: Bob | October 20, 2009 12:10 PM

A little unsolicited advice: I've seen three pictures of you in the past few weeks (the Humanist cover; the Mr. Deity video and another I can't recall), and they all look better, and friendlier, than the headshot that accompanies the blog. Vanity aside, a less stern looking picture might make readers a bit more receptive.

I know, it's style rather than substance, but there's a reason why you have a picture up in the first place, and I'll bet it isn't to supply images for young earth creationist dartboards.

Posted by: B166ER | October 20, 2009 12:19 PM

@Bob # 9:

C'mon Bob, didn't you know that EVERY picture of P.Z. is meant for the bulls eyes on creationist dartboards? I thought that's why they were produced in the first place.

I dunno, I see nothing wrong with the photos of you (P.Z.) used for things. I think the Saddlesaurus pic would have been best though. But at least they got a pic of you with the crocoduck tie... PRICELESS!

No Gods, No Masters
Cameron

Posted by: senor | October 20, 2009 12:23 PM

So when does the issue of Tiger Beat with PZ on the cover come out?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 20, 2009 12:31 PM

So, if I wave this around, will it get me to the front of the line at all the hot, trendy, New York nightclubs?

Unlikely. But the tie might.

Posted by: bernarda | October 20, 2009 12:55 PM

OK, let me know when you will be on "The Daily Show" or "Stephen Colbert".

Posted by: JackC | October 20, 2009 12:59 PM

However, if you're ever looking for a meal a hot, trendy NYC restaurant or wine bar, I'll not only get you in, I'll buy.

And I will help. I have friends that work for such luminaries as Gordon Ramsey. We could probably get a good seat.

JC

Posted by: Miles Tougeaux | October 20, 2009 1:09 PM

Thankfully there is no centerfold.

Posted by: Jason A. | October 20, 2009 1:27 PM

So, if I wave this around, will it get me to the front of the line at all the hot, trendy, New York nightclubs?

Isn't atheism just a hot new trend anyways?

Posted by: ED-209 | October 20, 2009 1:38 PM

That's some outfit you got there prof.

Posted by: daleof | October 20, 2009 2:01 PM

P.S. I think the biology society in Maynooth is going to formally invite you to speak. They're organising a bus to take us up to Galway anyway. So see you in february?

(seriously we have a seminary here you should definitely come)

Posted by: Geds | October 20, 2009 2:10 PM

PZ @31: I've gotten so many invitations to speak in Ireland while I'm there -- I have to sit down and sort them out and figure out what is possible.

If you want me to take any of those speaking engagements you can't handle, let me know. I mean, I don't know much about biology, but I can tell funny stories and give the run-down of how actual knowledge of history kind of hoses the stories in the Bible. So there's that...

Posted by: europeanhistorian | October 20, 2009 2:27 PM

quote: "It's not because it is nothing but a philosophical construct even though that's all it is, and I actually kind of like philosophical constructs. Even moderate religion is an exercise in obscurantism, the elevation of feel-good fluff over substance."

This was an interesting article, but the above quote nicely reveals some major flaws in the author's overall thinking and that of the new atheism in general. First, it is quite clear that Myers likes philosophical constructs, though of course he isn't trained in philosophy. The problem is that his epistemology, and that of many other "new atheists," is basically a redux of logical positivism. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of philosophy or intellectual history knows that logical positivism has long been abandoned in philosophy as self-refuting and logically untenable.

Second, I had to chuckle at the reference to obscurantism and feel-good fluff over substance at a humanist meeting of all places. That description is perfect for humanism itself, whose values and ethical claims after all strongly resemble what one would find in the more liberal branches of religion, say the Episcopalian church or Reformed Judaism. In a world without God there simply is no such thing as right or wrong in the conventional sense (i.e. murder, theft, lying, etc.) and it either sentimentalistic or superstitious to concern oneself with improving the lot of humanity. Nietzsche rightly mocked this kind of atheism and attacked it for abandoning the supernatural aspects of religion while seeking to hold on to its basic ethical framework. It's little different than abandoning belief in God and continuing to pray each morning.

It's also interesting to note that Nietzsche attacked the English as susceptible to this wooly-headed thinking while today most of the "new atheists" are Anglo-Americans whose ideas aren't all that different, or new from atheists of the Victorian Age. From what I have read of the new atheists (and I'm not very impressed), they haven't engaged with Nietzsche's ideas or considered how the demise of logical positivism might actually render their claims about "science" nonsensical. Somehow it seems there is a gaping hole in their knowledge of intellectual history since the time of Auguste Comte.

Posted by: Margaret's Cat | October 20, 2009 3:01 PM

From the introduction:

... a University of Central Florida student ... stole a communion wafer to protest student fees being used toward religious services at the school.

Anyone know what that's about? I thought the student just wanted to take the cracker back to his seat to show his friend before eating it. And it's not stealing when they give it to you.

Posted by: Geds | October 20, 2009 3:05 PM

Does anyone want to update Margaret's Cat about Crackergate?

I...wait. Maybe...no.

Um, not it?

Posted by: Qwerty | October 20, 2009 3:09 PM

Margaret's Cat - Google crackergate for a few hours of reading material. Or go to Bill Donohue of the Catholic League's website and search for Myers to see the overboard reaction of conservative Catholics.

european historian - You're criticism seems to boil down to we need God to have a moralality. I disagree.

Posted by: Sastra | October 20, 2009 3:15 PM

europeanhistorian #34 wrote:

In a world without God there simply is no such thing as right or wrong in the conventional sense (i.e. murder, theft, lying, etc.) and it either sentimentalistic or superstitious to concern oneself with improving the lot of humanity.

No, it's the other way around. Values come first. Right and wrong (and good and evil) are always measured against shared human values of fairness, flourishing, etc -- and that includes statements to the effect that "God is good" or "God is right."

Think of it this way: Can you make a case that God ought to be our standard for what is Good, beginning from the common ground of human values? If so, then that secular ground must exist.

If not, then there is no reason that I, or you, or anyone, should accept or be persuaded that God is Good.

And another question: if you were to come to the conclusion that God does not exist -- and never has existed -- would you no longer love anything, or try to make the world better?

And if your answer to that is 'yes' -- do you think that makes you a more wise and sensitive person, than someone who loves and tries to make others happy, regardless of whether God exists or not?

Without starting from the common ground of secular moral values, you can't make your case for the necessity of God for moral values. All you're left with is "well, that's where they came from." And it doesn't matter where they came from, to deal with your problem.

Posted by: Geds | October 20, 2009 3:36 PM

europeanhistorian @39: You didn't address the substance of my post, which incidentally only proves my point about the lack of engagement with Nietzche. Nietzsche's arguments about ethics, as for example laid out in "Thus spoke Zarathustra" and "Beyond Good and Evil" are indeed direct attacks on the ethical claims of what today would be called secular humanism.

And your continued flogging of Nietzsche only proves my point that you're trying to re-direct by making us answer to a single authority who really has nothing to do with anything. Believe you me, I've read Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil, not to mention The Will to Power. I went through the Nietzsche stage just like any high school wanna-be intellectual.

The problem with any use of Nietzsche in this context is that to revert to him you have to ignore better than a century's worth of progress and regress. We now stand on the opposite side of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot from Nietzsche. We stand on the opposite side of the atomic age from Nietzsche. We stand on the opposite side of Social Darwinism from Nietzsche. We've seen exactly what the unchecked belief in constant human and scientific progress can bring if it's not accompanied by an attitude of actual caring for the rest of humanity and the rest of the planet.

That, in fact, was what the postmodern reaction to modernism started out to be before it turned to useless mush. Still, I've read Martin Buber, too, and seen how the I and Thou serves as a useful counterpoint to the modern that was co-opted by unthinking social relativism.

However, the overall reason that I don't feel the need to engage with Nietzsche is simple: the trenches of WWI, the Concentration Camps and atomic bombs of WWII and the Killing Fields of Cambodia amply proved Nietzsche correct. We now have a century of bloodshed that has proven itself the crucible of human perfectibility. And for the most part the secular humanism of today has reacted quite well to the lessons of history. I doubt that a majority, or even a significant minority, believes we can do much to drastically improve or perfect the human race, either through philosophy, technology, or science. It instead focuses on problem solving and how to understand that, no matter what, we are not so far removed from the apes and carry within ourselves the primitive, irrational nature that makes us one with the rest of the animal kingdom.

So the goal is to attempt to cast off those things that encourage us to stick to outmoded and dangerous ways of thinking and to try to make the world a better place. But nowhere do I see evidence that secular humanism and skepticism focus on the same grand ideas of human perfection against which Nietzsche railed.

Posted by: Schi-Chi | October 20, 2009 3:39 PM

"After all, [Nietzsche] was one of the most important modern atheist philosophers, and in my view one of the few worth taking seriously."

Nietzsche wasn't an atheist. He rails against god, but where does he say he doesn't believe in him?

"Anyone with a cursory knowledge of philosophy or intellectual history knows that logical positivism has long been abandoned in philosophy as self-refuting and logically untenable."

So is Nietzsche. Abhorred logic and "system-building." So you wan't to dismiss positivism because of logic, and accept Nietzsche despite it? or do you just flail against any position that isn't your own?

"Nietzsche rightly mocked this kind of atheism and attacked it for abandoning the supernatural aspects of religion while seeking to hold on to its basic ethical framework"

He wanted pre-socratic morality. Atheism too nihilistic. Christianity too passive. That's his philosophy in a nutshell.

"Nietzsche has clearly shown that humanism is bunk. "

Citation needed.

The problem, europeanhistory, is not that Nietzsche doesn't have valuable things to say, but that your tactics are all wrong. You have mismeasured your opponents, and are now trying to save face, trying to center the discussion on your territory to gain advantage. Which means you're only trying to sound smart, not make any points we should listen to.

Posted by: MrFire | October 20, 2009 3:42 PM

I meant to add:

Your no scholar, europeanhistorian.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 20, 2009 3:57 PM

Shorter europeanhistorian

Nietzsche is the most famous atheistic guy I know about, therefore all atheists must follow his lead.

Posted by: Margaret's Cat | October 20, 2009 4:06 PM

Thank you, Sastra. I missed that part of the fracas.

Posted by: Peter G. | October 20, 2009 4:40 PM

Congratulations and all that of course. A well earned honor. I don't think the picture does you justice however. The pursed lips and slightly flared nostrils would lead me to speculate that you were sitting next to an explosively flatulent Ray Comfort but were restrained by politeness from commenting on his condition. Not a likely scenario I grant you, given the venue. Access to New york night clubs might be a tad optimistic but I'm confident you would be welcome in any grad student pub on any campus in North America. That is a greater reward surely.

Posted by: europeanhistorian | October 20, 2009 5:30 PM

Geds,

I only have time for a brief reply to your post. First, it is interesting that you assert that we stand on the opposite side of Nietzsche, Social Darwinism, Pol Pot, Stalin and the atomic bomb and that earlier notions about progress and perfectibility were greatly overblown. This is quite different from much of the naive praise that new atheists heap upon science as a means to improve humanity’s lot. What I’ve read of the new atheists, including this blog, sounds similar to logical positivism circa 1890 with a dose of rage and ad hominem mixed in for good measure. As the creation and use of the atomic bomb clearly shows, however, science is as much capable of destroying human beings as it is improving their lives. And as I’ve already mentioned, logical positivism is simply epistemologically untenable, though many of the new atheists don’t seem remotely aware of this as for all intends and purposes it seems to be their chosen epistemology.

More importantly than all this, in a world without God there really is no reason to care about humanity in the first place. After all, there is nothing sacred, including human beings and human life. Epicureanism, not humanism is the logical response. Life is short. Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die. As long as others don’t bother or threaten me, why should care what they do? And why in world should I care about making the world a better place? If for example there is a flood in the Philippines or a famine in Africa, of what concern is it to me? These kinds of events have no impact on my life. So why should I care? There simply is no reason and certainly no duty or moral imperative to waste time and effort to improve the lot of humanity. Any claim to the contrary is superstitious. This is why humanism in any form is nonsense and ends up similar to religion in spite of itself.

My lot as an individual and the lot of my own family, community and nation, of course, is another matter than humanity's problmes. But the vast majority of the problems humans face in third world nations have no bearing on my life and thus do not warrant my concern. I probably won’t have time for any further posts at the moment. As is usual for what I’ve seen on this site, I’m sure I’ll receive a few thoughtful replies along with those only interested in heaping scorn (as if anger and sarcasm are a substitute for a logical argument) instead of addressing substantive issues I’ve raised.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 20, 2009 5:44 PM

You can't make sense of Shakespeare without knowing something about what's in the Bible.

And Greek mythology, and Roman history, and Northern European folk tales, and the Wars of the Roses. Checking in David and Ben Crystal's compendium Shakespeare's Words, I find the appendices for "classical mythology" and "gods and goddesses" are nine pages long together, while Christian "religious personalities and beings" take up barely a page and a half (the same length as the section on Welsh dialect). That includes saints and other such extra-Biblical personages, like Flibbertigibbet and his fellow demons. So, while references to Christianica are naturally common enough, the set of distinct individuals with whom one ought to be familiar isn't that huge.

(Naturally, that set includes fellows like Jephthah. Learn up on your Bible in order to follow Shakespeare, and you may find the Bible a less-than-pleasant place to be. O judge of Israel, what a treasure hadst thou.)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 20, 2009 6:07 PM

in a world without God

Posted by: IaMoL | October 20, 2009 6:16 PM

’m sure I’ll receive a few thoughtful replies along with those only interested in heaping scorn (as if anger and sarcasm are a substitute for a logical argument) instead of addressing substantive issues I’ve raised.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 20, 2009 6:26 PM

believe in human perfectibility

Posted by: John Morales | October 20, 2009 6:35 PM

europeanhistorian:

There simply is no reason and certainly no duty or moral imperative to waste time and effort to improve the lot of humanity.

I wonder how you reconcile the existence of atheist activists with the above sentiment? :)

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | October 20, 2009 6:47 PM

europeanhistorian,

Why does a belief in god necessitate caring for the people who undergo famine and other disasters in the developing world? If there is an afterlife, then the suffering people go through in this life is irrelevant. The tiny fraction of time (compared to eternity) that is spent starving while alive is minuscule.

Let's look at this from a Christian perspective for a moment. The defining aspect of Christianity is the belief that Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of humanity, and through faith in him one can have one's sins forgiven and enter into heaven after death. Conversely, those who do not have faith in Jesus as the sacrifice for sin will not enter into the kingdom of heaven. I will note that some liberal denominations and believers accept that some good people can get to heaven without belief in Jesus, but they're not the majority.

Now, if one accepts the premises of Christianity, there is still no reason to care what happens to people elsewhere. One must simply have faith in Jesus to enter into heaven where one will be happy forever. Please explain to me which part of this doctrine requires caring for others. I'll give you a hint, though it may be a sin not to care for others (this varies from denomination to denomination) as long as one has faith in Jesus and asks god to forgive one's sins, that person will still get into heaven/paradise and be happy forever.

Further, if Christianity requires caring for others, the most important aid to give people is conversion. Famine is not a problem, unbelief is. Like I said, the time spent in this life is minuscule compared to eternity. Therefore, alleviating suffering should be secondary to conversion of non-Christians. After all, it's not a difficult task to see that starving now is infinitely preferable to existence outside of heaven (or suffering in Hell as most denominations believe) for eternity.

Posted by: The Ungodly Goddess | October 20, 2009 7:35 PM

So, if I wave this around, will it get me to the front of the line at all the hot, trendy, New York nightclubs?

I doubt it... but it could cause extra attention from security guards at creationist screenings, (which could certainly up your "bad boy" swoon cred.)

Posted by: Schi-Chi | October 20, 2009 7:46 PM

Europeanhistory hasn't said anything. He's concern trolling using philosophers as mouthpieces. I'm trying to find claims, but they are non-existent or very weak. There's no basis, for example, of calling people here logical positivists. Sure, people insist on verifiability, but atheism isn't one of those "verifiable" things, so that assertion really doesn't get off the ground. Plenty of accusations, but I'm guessing this person (a guy no doubt) feels pretty smug about his armchair perch. First-year philosophy can do that to a person.

But from what he has said, he is easily dismissed...

"More importantly than all this, in a world without God there really is no reason to care about humanity in the first place."

false dichotomy, and everything he says follows from it. He's a moron.

Listen, Europeanhistory, instead of listing philosophers and caricaturing positions, try a little something called "argument," or did you miss the lectures on that?

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | October 20, 2009 7:51 PM

Epicureanism, not humanism is the logical response. Life is short. Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | October 20, 2009 8:11 PM

Next comes the claim that morality's 'borrowed', I bet.

Posted by: europeanhistorian | October 20, 2009 8:31 PM

quote: "Regarding what is "logically required" of atheism in terms of morality, europeanhistorian is aware of the importance of rational self-interest in moral and political philosophy since the Enlightenment. That he makes no effort whatsoever to address it when he declares what we are 'logically required' to do is at least as glaring an omission as atheists failing to address Neitzsche."

As I suspected, most of the people who responded to my comments have shown that their ability to engage with ideas does not rise about unwarranted assumptions about my believes (I never indicated I am a theist) and childish insults, which is hardly a mark of intelligence. The above quote is the only one worth addressing. Briefly, rational self-interest or utilitarianism makes sense to a degree, but it will only take you so far. First, it does not allow one to make claims that actions such as murder are inherently wrong or actions such as giving to the poor are inherently right. They are only useful or unhelpful in creating or maintaining the type of society one would care to inhabit, which can be subjective. Second, it excludes many if not most acts of altruism. In short, rational self-interest is insufficient foundation for a coherent and workable system of ethics. Sorry, Kant trumps Bentham.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 20, 2009 8:42 PM

and childish insults, which is hardly a mark of intelligence.

First, it does not allow one to make claims that actions such as murder are inherently wrong or actions such as giving to the poor are inherently right.

In short, rational self-interest is insufficient foundation for a coherent and workable system of ethics. Kant trumps Bentham.

Posted by: Kel, OM | October 20, 2009 8:59 PM

Evolution is about cooperation.

Posted by: Schi-Chi | October 20, 2009 10:13 PM

europeanhistory,
"Briefly, rational self-interest or utilitarianism makes sense to a degree, but it will only take you so far. First, it does not allow one to make claims that actions such as murder are inherently wrong or actions such as giving to the poor are inherently right."

So are you saying that the task of reasoning is to posit absolutes and work one's way to them? Bentham is no good because, briefly, the answer you want isn't there? And by the way, have you even read Bentham? (not that I'm a supporter).

All your talk of logic and you commit the most basic fallacies. Again, you have contributed nothing. Stop strawmanizing. You are being argumentative, you are not arguing.

Take us to school then. You want to argue for absolute morality? Do it, show us what you got. Right now, all you are is hot air.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | October 20, 2009 11:28 PM

I occasionally wonder what morality and civilisation would look like if we had evolved from a different and less social species, like tigers. Very solitary animals, tigers - would they even be able to cooperate to make buildings, let alone computers? Could a non-social species have developed the social skills secondarily from self-interest?

Mary Doria Russell had an interesting SF book (The Sparrow) which had a predator and prey species co-evolving intelligence. The moral codes of each were naturally very different, and different again to the protagonist, a priest. (First alien contact leads directly to missionaries. Of course.)

Posted by: Gliewmeden | October 20, 2009 11:46 PM

Congratulations PZ!!!

I have printed it off for bed time reading.

Love what you do.

Posted by: Kel, OM | October 21, 2009 12:33 AM

What I find quite irksome is that when someone gets negative responses, they hone in on that instead of addressing the legitimate responses raised. Surely it would be preferred to address the most serious challengers and challenges to ones position instead of pointing out the stream of negativity.

*sigh*, I guess it's a way of telling the difference between those who want a serious discussion and those who want to troll.

Posted by: Schi-Chi | October 21, 2009 3:31 AM

sorry, "europeanhistorian." I guess I can get my details better myself.