The Center for Inquiry has put together two letters on the Webster Cook affair, one to be sent to UCF president John Hitt, and the other to the Catholic League. I've put both below the fold.
Dear John C. Hitt:
We are writing in response to the recent controversy surrounding University of Central Florida student Webster Cook. Countless people have publicly proclaimed that they are sending letters to your University demanding the expulsion of Webster Cook.
Let us quickly recap the events in question. Webster Cook went to a communion ceremony on campus, not at a Catholic Church, and was given a communion wafer by the celebrant of the ceremony. When Mr. Cook failed to engage in the prescribed ritual, some in the congregation demanded the wafer's return; he refused to do so. Mr. Cook returned home, and as the incident gained exposure and threats were issued, he returned the wafer.
Even looking at Webster Cook's actions in the worst possible light, they amount to nothing more than conduct that some would consider blasphemous. Blasphemy falls within the Constitutionally-guaranteed right of free speech.
We can understand that you are experiencing an onslaught of public pressure to punish Webster Cook and one can certainly argue that his behavior was insensitive. Yet this begs the question: what would the size of your student body be if you expelled all students who were insensitive? An enlightened university education reinforces the virtue of free speech's role in a civil society. While offensive to a portion of the population, Mr. Cook's actions were in no way illegal; however, if carried out, the threats of physical violence leveled against him are indeed illegal.
The Center for Inquiry, with which we are affiliated, values the highest ideals of the university in promoting critical thinking and freedom of inquiry. To expel Webster Cook for his actions would betray these principles.
Below are the signatures of many prominent Center for Inquiry campus affiliate group leaders and other supporters. We strongly encourage you to denounce the threats of violence against one of your undergraduates and sustain your support for freedom of speech on your campus.
To the Catholic League and affiliates,
In the United States there is a rich tradition of freedom of speech and freedom of thought, without fear of violent retribution. A good corporate citizen or non-profit organization could reasonably be expected to speak out against its own constituents when they threaten violence. You have a rare opportunity to demonstrate that you are a good corporate citizen.
In response to the recent controversy surrounding University of Central Florida student Webster Cook, many individuals have threatened Cook and his family with violence and death. These outrageous threats of terrorist behavior have been extended to zoologist and professor P.Z. Myers. We urge you to uphold your responsibility as a corporate citizen to condemn these malicious threats of violence and death.
We believe in mutual tolerance of beliefs as we all seek the truth. Violence is never appropriate over what is essentially an academic-theological question; such questions must be subject to calm, reasoned discourse.
Regrettably, many individuals have chosen to threaten to take a vigilante approach to this controversy in an entirely inappropriate and criminal manner, subjecting Webster Cook, P.Z. Myers, and their families to threats of violence. These actions are a blatant affront to our common human dignity. Threats of death and violence, beyond being inarguably dangerous, are an affront to the reputation of your faith tradition and your own organization. Whether or not the perpetrators of this shameful behavior are connected to your organization, it remains in your hands to maintain the civility and seriousness of the discourse.
The Center for Inquiry, with which we are affiliated, values the highest ideals of the university in promoting critical thinking and freedom of inquiry. Below are the signatures of many prominent Center for Inquiry campus affiliate group leaders and other supporters. We strongly encourage you to do the right thing and condemn the threats of violence.
- Log in to post comments
I love DJ Grothe! lol
They left out the physical assault (as small as it was) at the beginning of the whole incident. Other than that, good stuff.
I especially liked the thrust of the CFI's letter to the Catholic League. It highlights a particularly under-reported phenomenon: NOWHERE and NEVER did anyone from the League ever issue ANY sort of denounciation of the threats of violence issued to Cook or PZ.
I guess Donohue et al. really aren't any better than the preachers found in many mosques. They preach and incite hatred, and then still claim that their religion is one of peace.
oops, DJ Grothe is from Point of Inquiry not Center for Inquiry lol
I don't think that their letter to the Catholic League will have much of an effect, but at least they're speaking up.
I also contacted Mr. Hitt and politely asked him to uphold Mr. Cook's Constitutional rights. I hold little hope that this will occur though...
They also missed out the fact that death threats are in themselves illegal, and not only when they are acted upon.
I'm sure that the CFI's calm and reasoned missive to the Catholic League will leave Bill Donohue at a loss for words, allowing us to take our ease during an extended period of contemplative silence and thoughtful reflection....
By the way, I wrote to the UCF president about the plight of the forgotten man in this whole farce: Webster Cook's friend Benjamin Collard, who was reportedly prevented from registering for classes because of a complaint filed against him by Catholic Campus Ministries. I just received a reply from the president's executive assistant. [Link]
Fantastic! This makes me have a little hope for reason and our rights to free speech. I am thoroughly impressed with this response.
That first letter was much better than Richard Dawkin's letter, which I suspect will be counterproductive if John C. Hitt is a Christian.
DJ is with CFI. The philosopher Paul Kurtz is the head CFI honcho.
Zeno,
Good point - Mr. Collard is being ostracized by mere association.
Zeno @ #8:
But then who will supply us with regular highly-amusing apoplectic paroxysms of faith-based outrage?
Oh, right: most of the rest of the Internet.
D.J. Grothe works at the Center for Inquiry, where he is the host of the podcast Point of Inquiry.
As for the letters, in which I had a very small part; I would like to point out that although these letters are endorsed by the Center for Inquiry, they were written by a collective of student leaders from around the country. The idea for the letters was the brainchild of a friend of mine, whose blog and podcasts you can find at: http://mindcore.podbean.com/
Bill Donohue is just going to ignore it like he does all other forms of logic.
Hey, check out this t-shirt:
http://www.cafepress.com/rawcracker.290345941
"Warning: Consumption of raw or undercooked meat (including Eucharist) may increase your risk of food borne illness."
No wonder he didn't eat the cracker... they turned it into raw meat!
He could have nailed it to a tree.
Then it would be gone in three days or so.
Threats of death and violence, beyond being inarguably dangerous, are an affront to the reputation of your faith tradition and your own organization.
______
That's the trouble, they have no good reputation about which to be concerned. They got nothing to lose.
Perhaps, their laughable perception that their faith tradition enjoys a good reputation will encourage them to just go through the motions to save their non-existent reputation.
Great letters, I love the Center for Inquiry. Maybe this is a chance for everybody who appreciates the professional response from CFI to donate to them so that they can do more great stuff like this. Lobbyists for secularists, campus groups, a great podcast.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/support
I definitely do not work for them or have any affiliation with CFI. I just like what they do.
Josh Xiong an up and coming blogger has produced some interesting thoughts on matters you might be interested in Mr. Myers.
Josh Xiong
I believe in Christopher Hitchens. Therefore, I believe in God.
[i]That's the trouble, they have no good reputation about which to be concerned[/i]
Where did it say in the letter that the reputation was good? Reputations can be good or bad. I know, because mine is bad...
# 9 Zeno Farox is a cool name.
At one point we were debating keeping or leaving out the sentence "a cracker does not have rights."
Heh heh.
@ #19
Only to return again, and again, and again... in countless blessed frackin' crackers.
Good letters. But isn't it ironic that they don't know the proper use of "begging the question?"
@Zeno #9
Yes, it is a form letter. I received the same from the Executive Asst. in reply to my e-mail. I also sent a paper letter. Don't know if I will receive any response or the same. BTW, I never received any response from the letter I sent to the president of University of Minnesota.
So is Zeno Ferox, Scooter. :)
I received a boilerplate reply from John Hitt. Well, actually from his assistant. "Laws forbid us from discussing individual students, but we're harassing him according to our code of fairness, etc."
"Good letters. But isn't it ironic that they don't know the proper use of "begging the question?"
I am not one for cutting into one's sense of superiority, but given that the old, alleged proper usage of the term "begging the question" has fallen out of favor as our language evolved, should it even be considered the proper form? Perhaps, CFI is using the proper usage while you're being archaic.
Donohue and the Catholic Leaguers were born into the wrong century. A few hundred years ago, they could torture heretics and blashemers to their heart's content and then burn them at the stake. And then get up the next day and do it all again. For variety they could join the crusades or massacre some protestants somewhere.
I'm pleased with the letters, but I doubt the one to the CL will elicit anything more then the: "Look! Look! The bad old Atheists are attacking us again!!!" response typical of them.
When did Prof. Myers become a zoologist?
Maybe the religious nuts don't have control of actual armies (and maybe they do?...you are aware of Bush's reliance on 'experts' in every area being graduates of God University?) but they still have too much sway as is evidenced by this example.
Isn't it wonderful to witness FIRSTHAND how the truly FAITHFUL really have SO LITTLE FAITH in their vengeful God that they are constantly trying to do his job for him? Miraculous smitings are few and far between aren't they?
Cookie bullshit aside, most people have noticed that the 'morality' that evangelical religions most promote is, in nearly all cases, somehow related to sexuality or reproduction. Birth control, premarital sex, and sexual orientation dominate the public morality debate.
Premarital sex is bad unless it's with God and a virgin, and abortion is out of the question because you gotta carry the product of his rape to term. Otherwise how you gonna get Jesus? Of course the son of a bitch coulda just poofed Jesus out of dust like he did Adam, but after God saw the dangling sexy bits produced out of Adam's rib he took a hankering to young ho's. God found his aging prostate needed the extra prodding a good nubile finger could provide. Pretty much what any aging reprobate with omnipotent power would do. (Don't blame me for the analogy here. My religious friends have drilled home that we are made in God's image)
There is no danger to society in letting people believe in fairies. There is a great danger to society if you let those people attempt to build a 'reality' out of it in our schools and courthouses.
When OUR religious nutjobs react the same way as we've been INDOCTRINATED to view the 'rabid' Muslims, it really backfires for their cause.
Enjoy.
Amen! Praise CFI and pass me a wafer.
Fantastic! Man I love a good dose of rationality.
Come now, the Catholic League is Donohue sitting in his basement writing letters condemn things 8 hours a day, with a break for lunch brought to him by his much abused wife.
(+)
Ennui: thank goodness someone spotted that. I was beginning to wonder if we really have education on our side. CFI guys & gals: "beg the question" means "assume the answer."
"When did Prof. Myers become a zoologist?"
I know, right? Morris,MN doesn't even have a Zoo!
One nitpick - and apparently it took a foreigner to point it out. The following phrase does not put the CFI in a very good light:
"Yet this begs the question: what would the size of your student body be if you expelled all students who were insensitive?"
It does not. As anyone with an OK command of the English language (especially anyone who has taken an Intro course in Critical Thinking) can tell you, the phrase "begging the question" means "presupposing what you're arguing for/arguing in a circular manner". It does emphatically NOT mean the same as "raising the question" or "prompting the question". It is a common mistake, especially among (sports) reporters and journalists with little education, but it is still a glaring error which will easily make the letter look rather amateurish. Proof readers?
Sorry. ennui first pointed this one out at #27. Insofar as she/he is not a foreigner as well, I guess the honour of the English speaking world is safe for now.
Yep. It's the same letter that I posted on my blog. Looks like we all got the same one. (I wonder how many of those went out.)
Direct and to the point but I somehow think that this won't get much press. The wingnuts will continue on.
I'm glad the CFI has finally gotten around to writing to the University and the CL. But why did they wait 3 weeks and 21 minutes to do it?
It's great to see the CFI speaking up on this, and defending PZ.
While I don't expect a positive, reasonable response from the Catholic League, it's always worth a try.
Can we add our signatures to these?
Surely you mean the Cthulhic League , whose talking head has warne of PZ extending the tendentious tentacles of Cephalopodolatry into Fox TV's turf.
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2008/07/put-another-heretic-on-the-bar…
Oh man, has anyone gotten FIRE involved? They are great at defending university students embroiled in free speech issues.
"Threats of death and violence, beyond being inarguably dangerous, are an affront to the reputation of your faith tradition and your own organization."
Oh, definitely. Threats of death and violence are nothing we've seen from the Catholics and their faith tradition before.
I am glad the letter to the Catholic League referred to the death threats as terrorism. Maybe that will wake them up to the fact you don't have to be Muslim to be a terrorist and their religion is not immune to its members committing violence. But it's more likely they'll think the accurate label of "terrorism" is an affront to their beliefs and they have special rights to go after critics.
39: I prefer this variant:
<=(+)==|
So, some priest "consecrates" a wafer/host and it "trans substantiates" into the body of Christ, eh? Then the faithful consume it. In other words, they eat their god.
Is this not some sort of cannibalism? After all, the Christ was supposed to be both man and god. Go figure!
I wonder what else these priests can turn into flesh and blood besides wafers. Why, they could produce a veritable cornucopia of delicacies to munch on.
And then, of course, they excrete it and flush it down the toilet! Some way to celebrate your union with their lord, eh? NOT!
a 4
1 Ae e e I a o you,
O y ieou o.
ie e eie o y ie;
e eiu o e a ea y aye.
2 o o, O e, i you u y oy io ae
o o i you oe euio a ee ae o
ea
3 o a e O a e aa e oy o ie;
e O i ea e I a o i.
4 I you ae o o i;
e you ae o you e,
ea you ea a e ie.
ea
5 Oe i aiie
a u i e O.
6 ay ae ai, "o a o u ay oo?"
e e i o you ae ie uo u, O O.
7 You ae ie y ea i eae oy
a e ei ai a e ie aou.
8 I i ie o a ee i eae,
o you aoe, O O,
ae e e i aey.
[Jack is banned and deserves deconsonanting]
A "faith tradition" associated with boiling living people in oil, collaborating with Nazis, and raping children has so much to lose.
By the way: Dawkins' web site's apparently been hacked again -- I keep getting MySQL errors there. The bookstore part works fine, but the fora are down as is the home page.
This is true. Josh is working hard at fixing it now.
Richard
I feel that the 'beg the question' point is important as we are constantly having to deal with fallacious arguments from various sources. For more ammo in the battle for reason;
http://www.think.i12.com/fallacies.html
This guy doesn't have much of a site, but that one page deserves to be mirrored and mirrored so everyone can get to read it.
Hi Richard!
Thanks for nothing Jack.
Blargh, my awesome, totally-not-ripped-off-from-another-poster nailed Host emoticon doesn't work. Musta mistyped it or something
Serious question?
He studies zebrafish, fish are animals, ergo he does zoology. This terminology is left over from the olden daze when large universities had Departments of Zoology, Botany, and Microbiology. A few places still do this (Oklahoma State comes to mind), but most places large enough to split up a general Biology department these days do so by level of organization: Molecular/Cell vs. Organismal/Ecology.
If, alternatively, you were kidding, I don't get it.
@ #50: FIRE?
@ #53: The "invisibility" variant?
I keep thinking of Frank McCourt's tale in Angela's Ashes about his First Communion. The priest had been drilling the kids for weeks on how to receive the Eucharist. Finally the big day came, and McCourt was so terrified, his stomach was in knots. After church, he barely made it home before his stomach rebelled completely, and he rushed out the back door and vomited.
The entire family was horrified, especially his extremely devout aunt, and his mom sent him straight to bed the way so many moms do with sick kids. He was horrified at having "thrown up Jesus in the yard," but that didn't come anywhere near his frustration at not being able to go around the neighborhood like the other kids and collect the customary small gifts of money.
Of course, it goes without saying that he caught Holy Hell(TM) from the priest at his next confession.
Ahhhhhhhh, Irish Catholic guilt...........
For your amusement (in case you haven't seen this hilarious series) are the Jesus and Mo cartoons about the cracker
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/07/14/mass/
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/07/17/stout/
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/07/23/catch/
That first letter was much better than Richard Dawkin's letter, which I suspect will be counterproductive if John C. Hitt is a Christian.
I agree. I think the whole "it's just a cracker - I am going to prove it is nothing" business was an unhelpful distraction from the main point that is clearly expressed in these letters - this is all about freedom of speech, and interference with that freedom from bodies like the Catholic League.
Regarding the Dawkins website, I would like to defend Josh. I am an expert in website design and hosting, and the error messages I saw implied that it was actually a disk space issue, and not a hack as such. I am sure his website is secure, and he will resolve this soon.
Right, we must be careful to not offend Catholic assholes.
#67
The world is full of assholes of all kinds. Successful politics is about attacking the right assholes. It may even be about getting some assholes to work with you against worse assholes.
The person UCF NEEDS to hear from is an ACLU lawyer. What the hell are they smoking down there? Don't they understand that public institutions are bound by the 1st Amendment? There should never have been any disciplinary inquiry about Cook and Collard in the first place, and UCF would be extremely ill-advised to take any action against them.
I was just reminded of the world-class stupid asshole Fr. J. If anyone in his church puked up Jebus, Fr. J would call the police and demand the sick person be arrested for blasphemy.
All fixed now. Thank you, Josh, you are a hero.
Richard
Statements like this beg the question - when has anyone ever seen the phrase used in the "proper" form? Because I haven't. Correct or not, contrary to your statement above, I've only ever seen it to mean "raise the question". The link provided in the other post sounds like a group of antiquated philosophers and linguists pouting because - horror of horrors! - the meaning of a phrase has changed over time.
Here's another psalm for the psalm pilot troll:
Off Topic and apology if this is old news, but the Karl Giberson Salon article is now available hassle free at:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/31/religion_science/
#71
It is worth establishing that this was not a hack, but a resource problem.
There is all the difference between having a website that is insecure and one that has simply run out of disk space.
Wow, this ridiculous hubbub is still going on?
Wow. Do not let language change or evolve, ever. Let's all pronounce the "k" and "gh" in "knight" again (like in Monthy Python), too! Get Involved! Kill some trees and print cards about it! Fight for the proper knight (and definitely pronounce the gh in fight, too, else it doesn't rhyme with knight, silly!)
GET INVOLVED. Because there are no better things to waste your time on, but stopping language from changing. In fact, let's all go back to speaking latin. After all, language barriers also only 'evolved' over time!
From the link in #74: Piercing a Communion wafer with a nail and throwing it in the garbage, as one crusading biologist recently did, does science no favors. By Karl Giberson
ThirtyFiveUp, Karl Giberson seems to want scientists to respect religious insanity. If I understood him correctly the reputation of science depends on scientists sucking up to Christians. That's been tried and it accomplished nothing.
The philosopher poet John Lennon; or the doped-up, philandering, Marxist John Lennon?
Has Webster Cook ever contacted PZ Myers (or vice versa)? I wonder if he has been following the Pharyngula crackergate drama, and if so whether he approves, disapproves -- or just wants it all left alone at this point.
I have a vague recollection of him posting something in one of the earliest threads, but there's been so much material I could be mistaken.
I hope this isn't too off topic: check out the guy who got even with PZ by 'desecrating' a MICROSCOPE. I am not making this up.
The Freedom of Speech has nothing to do with UCF. The First Amendment only guarantees that the government will not gag you.
Actually, my undergraduate degree IS a BS in Zoology.
You (and raiko, #77) really don't see the difference between changing pronunciation and a change in the meaning of a phrase because of undereducated people misunderstanding the phrase's meaning? Are you such a descriptionist that you're happy to put the future of the language in the hands of its stupidist users? People who think that "free reign" (one I've seen around here recently) and "Here, here" (ditto) are correct? Not me. Wrong is wrong, no matter how many people don't realize it.
Mine too. But we're old.
huh. A quick googlization suggests that there are a lot more fossil Zoology Dpartments still out there than I thought. Makes a traditionalist happy.
Desecrating a microscope? Since it was never "sanctified", how could this occur? I detect some loose marbles somewhere.
If it was an antique, I could see how a friend of mine, who works for Leica and has a collection of old microscopes, might be offended. PZ offended, no way.
Any relation between what PZ got his BS in and what he does for a living now is purely coincidental. The last stats I saw on the subject indicated that less than 20% of BS graduates were still in their major field after five years. Those of us still in the same field must have a real love for it.
Please don't lump all of the Catholics under the Donohue banner. Many of us were highly offended but all we did was write letters and offered prayers for PZ Myer's insult to us.
I wonder if in time, we can come together and reason and talk and constuctivly add to the betterment of humankind.
Jeez, the guy didn't even "desecrate" the microscope--in fact he didn't even get hold of a real microscope.
He photoshopped--badly--a banana peel over the top of a picture of a (crappy old) microscope.
THAT'll show ya, Meyerz!
Tony #88:
You offered to talk to yourselves. How nice. Sorry, but you wackos deserve to offended.
"...however, if carried out, the threats of physical violence leveled against him are indeed illegal."
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that even mere threats are illegal. They need not be carried out to be illegal. No?
UCF is a public, i.e. government, institution. It is well established law that public universities have much less leeway than private ones to restrict speech or favor religion.
Laws regarding student privacy prevent us from commenting about individual UCF students. But, in general terms, when a student allegedly violates student rules of conduct, his or her student account is placed on hold.<\i>
Hmmm - can we report the students who attacked and threatened Webster Cook? Surely, the student rules of conduct do not sanction physical attacks/threats thereof...
Re: "Begging the question": Yes, languages change. However, "begging the question" is a term of art used to indicate circular arguments, something with which the devotees of Pharyngula should be familiar, given the number of godbotherers who use them to "prove" one has to believe in their brand of imaginary pal in order to be a moral creature.
The Freedom of Speech has nothing to do with UCF.
State university = state government, hence subject to 1stA protection.
I contend that eating and digesting the Lord Jesus is far, far worse than crumbling him up and throwing in in the trash with the Quran and The God Delusion. Pz and Webster did the only ethical thing. They liberated the Lord Jesus from the clutches of a acidic acid. Well down!
caldfyr claimed "The Freedom of Speech has nothing to do with UCF. The First Amendment only guarantees that the government will not gag you."
The UCF is a state institution and, as such, part of the government. Were it private, it could discipline a student for any reason. As a state institution, if may not, least of all for an action that has harmed no one, not even a "cracker." And it certainly has no grounds for taking action against Benjamin Collard, who did nothing more than sit in the pew next to Webster Cook, if I understand the specifics correctly.
Dave Empey's link in #81 is funny. I'm not sure if it's funny-funny, or strange-funny. Both, maybe.
The Catholic gentleman has decided to desecrate a scientific object because he wants to highlight the "tunnel vision that scientists often develop in their empiro-metric view of the world." Modern science grew out of Christianity (yes, the Bible is all about testing and falsification), and
Oh my gosh, they did forget about that! How could scientists have missed that intellect is a supernatural spiritual essence. Somebody remind the neurologists.
So he commits the vile act of desecration. It is done.
The poor, discarded, banana peel laden microscope now speaks to us of how useless, useless science is -- it couldn't even stop this holy, sacred relict from being desecrated like that. My trust is shattered. The empirico-metric view can't be used to prove ontological questions (like God), so it's clearly deficient. Time scientists got back to acknowledging that "theology is the queen of the sciences." Even though it's not a science.
Yes, you have to start with theology and put it in charge of science, because you'd never arrive there, would you?
The more I read apologetics, the more I wonder how so many people seem to find them so convincing. I suppose it looks different if you're just reassuring yourself of what you already know.
You don't think Pharyngula is a zoo?
Why didn't CFI do it sooner? I don't know.
CFI was busy planning summer conferences. This idea came from a student and was picked up by student leaders at the conference; some people close to the UCF incident were present at the conference.
Uh.. I really hope you didn't buy any books there while you suspected it was cracked - buying from a cracked web site is a really, really bad idea. Wait till it's fixed.
And here I had thought that specialists preferred to be identified by rubrics particular to their specialty. (Here in Florida, all "rocket scientists" I've met describe themselves as "auxiliary booster propellant valve telemetry designers" or suchlike.)
But at least Prof. M. has answered my question - and I didn't even have to beg!
From the microscope "desecration" comments:
"By Rob in Maine on July 28, 2008 12:38 PM
I'm a Surgical Technologist at a Catholic Hospital. I too shall take up the banner and desecrate science! Today, I won't scrub my hands with detergents before an operation. Iodine prep? The Devil's Ink, I calls it! Fie on their "germ theory"! It's just a "theory", after all."
Man! I hope that was sarcasm!
Given the mention of religious services on school campuses, and the many reminders of a school's responsibility to its students, does anyone else get the feeling that this letter is a mild and subtle reminder to the university that they may be facing a legal challenge if they pursue their chosen course on this issue?
When people go back to using the original meanings of "quantum leap," "sea change" and "lion's share," and stop saying things like "it's light years ahead of its time," then we can complain about much more obscure terms like "begging the question." [wink, wink]
On a more serious note, it seems that not a few etymologists would argue that "someone who simply has no god belief" has never been the meaning of the word "atheist" despite the roots of the word. If I'm reading things correctly, "atheist" began as (and has been used as) meaning "someone who actively disbelieves in God," and was intended as a disparaging term, until only recently. Hence Huxley's coining of "agnostic."
#103--
What's the useful distinction between passively disbelieving something and actively disbelieving it?
Agnosticism seems like a bit of a cop-out. No one says they're agnostic with respect to fairies. Why should any given god be different?
@ Great Destroyer of Laboratory Equipment:
Irreverence. You're doing it wrong.
Wouldn't surprise me. PZ probably uses the site to study our habits.
atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
agnostic: One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
Using these definitions, an agnostic doubts the existence of a sky fairy but doesn't deny its existence. I think that's sucking up to the theists. Agnostics are implying the theists are not insane.
There's really no difference between a sky fairy (Mr. God) and a tooth fairy. It would be ridiculous to be agnostic about tooth fairies, and it's equally ridiculous to be agnostic about sky fairies.
You know, sticking an adjective in front of it doesn't make "disbelieves" any less synonymous with "has no...belief".
Besides, "actively disbelieves" doesn't even make sense. You can't actively not do something. You either perform an action or you don't. Trying to say there's some substantive difference between not doing something and actively not doing it is just silly.
"You know, sticking an adjective in front of it"
Just in case the grammar Nazis are out, I see that's an adverb now.
I fervently disbelieve in space cows.
Agree with earlier posts. Agnosticism is quite bankrupt and more than a little cowardly.
Yes, I cannot affirmatively disprove the existence of any given god, but I don't need to issue that disclaimer every bloody time I express disbelief. I am effectively sure no gods exist, that's the main point. These agnostics are simply giving undue respect to the dominant religions. Imagine how ridiculous it would be to say "I am agnostic with respect to Baal's existence." Flash forward to Jesus, and suddenly it's too close to call. Give me a break!
The usual explanation of agnostic vs. atheist is that they describe positions in different areas. Agnosticism deals with epistemology -- the degree of certainty in knowledge. Atheism has to do with belief.
Given a non-contradictory definition of God:
Does God exist? I don't know. Technically, I cannot claim to KNOW with 100% certainty either way.
Do I believe God exists? No.
That first answer makes me agnostic -- but that second answer marks me as an atheist. I am both.
I usually self-identify as atheist because an agnostic could be theist, atheist, or on the fence when it comes to what they believe. It's not a terribly useful term, then -- except as indicating that I recognize that our beliefs on empirical matters could be wrong, and should therefore be provisional.
If I really want to be accurate, I say I am secular humanist. That signifies both atheism, and the agnostic approach of science.
Professor:
I wanted to comment in your other thread but it was closed. You should know that English copies of the Koran are not held in as high regard as Arabic ones since those are supposed to be the Word of God. I can guarantee you that if you binned one of those, and sent a link to ONE Muslim internet forum, you would in fact be getting threats from Muslims.
Such a cute little troll
#112--
Very well, but self-described agnostics usually selectively apply their agnosticism in daily communication. They will label themselves as agnostic with respect to the Abrahimic God but usually just dismiss outright the existence of Zeus elsewhere. I'm calling attention to this unhelpful inconsistency. It wrongly suggests that somehow the God of the Bible has a firmer basis in fact than Zeus.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmm Comsic Cheeseburgers...
Is "begging the question" really begging the question because it is begging the question?
*Dizzy*
The Adamant Atheist #113 wrote:
Sometimes. I know some very persistent agnostics who will insist that they ARE agnostic on Zeus. And space cows. "Anything's possible." tch
But some cases I think the self-professed agnostics really do think the God of the Bible has a firmer basis in fact than Zeus. There are also people who waver back and forth. Okay.
But I am bothered by those 'agnostics' who no more believe in God than you or I do, but justify their use of the term because they seem to think that the straw-man atheist -- who KNOWS there is no God, and would NOT believe in God no matter WHAT -- is the standard, normal, "real" atheist, and any admission that they either would or could change their mind given sufficient evidence means they're no longer an atheist.
That's just feeding into the theists' fantasies that atheists are unreasonable and wouldn't change their mind no matter what (so that's why God doesn't bother to provide more evidence of its existence, you see.)
I used the term "straw-man" because it's rare, not because it doesn't exist. Sometimes I suspect some of the Pharyngula regulars might fit. But I don't know. I'm agnostic on that.
#118--
Fair enough.
Yeah, that's an irritating strawman. There are a host of wondrous signs that a God could provide in order to convince me of his/her existence. Or, at least I would be inclined to believe that there is a real phenomenon at work--I suspect highly advanced aliens could really get some mileage out of exploiting one of our religious myths ;)
Hassle free? You mean that the dribble has been completely re-written, and now displays RATIONAL and VALID argumentation??
Jesus and Mo comics: The links at #64 start one after the first comic in the series. Begin at http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/07/09/wafer/ and just keep clicking the >> button. There are five comics in the series.
Born a fuckwit, Rob, or did cat'licking make you one??
Rob is obviously joking, shonny.
"Is "begging the question" really begging the question because it is begging the question?"
I dunno... will someone please, please tell me?
It worked for the conquistadors.
" 7 You ae ie y ea i eae oy
a e ei ai a e ie aou.
8 I i ie o a ee i eae,
o you aoe, O O,
ae e e i aey.
[Jack is banned and deserves deconsonanting]"
You know, when you do that, it looks a lot like Hawaiian.
http://www.catholicleague.com/release.php?id=1469
You know, I think this is a veiled endorsement for more threats. What else do you think Donahue expects the "Catholic community" to do?
"You don't think Pharyngula is a zoo?"
That makes PZ a zookeeper... not a zoologist.
Besides, we all know PZ has been called worse things than that.
What a douchebag Donohue is. That press release is akin to a child throwing a temper tantrum.
It would appear that the Catholic League is a 501(c)3 entity. Yet it is clearly in violation of the IRS regulations in that they have commentary on their website opposing a candidate for office.
www.catholicleague.org/obama&infanticide.php
Perhaps it is appropriate to place an inquiry with the IRS concerning this matter. After all, with the concerns the Catholic League has expressed about violations of the law in the cracker case, we wouldn't want them to run afoul of the law themselves, now would we?
www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=178241,00.html
Anyone notice how it says "For Religious And Civil Rights" in the upper left hand corner of the press release page?
Ugh. Civil rights include the right to offend! To hell with Donahue. Let us never stop defying him and his ilk.
#104 and #111:
Of course there is a difference between actively and passively not doing something. It's the difference between refusing to file your tax returns, and not knowing that you're supposed to file tax returns. Either way, you don't file your returns, but how lenient the tax man will be when he knocks at your door will depend upon your motivation for your failure to act.
But really, my point was in response to comment #84. If wrong usage is wrong usage, then the atheists who proclaim that all "atheist" means is "lacking a belief in God" are wrong because historically, the word hasn't been used in such a way until relatively recently. Historically, it's been closer to "antitheist," which is how most of the theists in today's world understand it, anyway.
I must say, however, that I am an active participant (however minimally) in trying to get the public perception to change, and for the "correct" meaning to the one that the average Joe thinks when he hears the word.
From my reading of Huxley, it seems clear that he meant "agnostic" to be a synonym for "atheist," but without the negative baggage associated with the latter word. The popular meaning today, "wishy-washy with respect to God's existence," would probably make Huxley's head explode. "Agnostic," with his meaning of "having no special mystical knowledge," is equivalent to "I see no evidence for the existence of God, therefore I don't believe." There was nothing wishy-washy about it at all, and it offered no concession to the theists. Yet here we are, with perfectly good agnostics throwing the word away because the usage, to them, implies a compromise that they reject.
But to put my whole point in more direct terms, I think there are a bunch of other language "problems" that the readers of this blog should be more concerned with than whether people are using "begs the question" correctly. After all, that term doesn't get used for self-identification with a group (except, perhaps, the already-mentioned grammar - or logic - Nazis).
#132--
That's a terrible analogy. In your tax filing example one is either ignorant of his duty or consciously disregards that duty. We're discussing one's thoughts with respect to religious claims that ARE known to the individual. If you aren't aware that the claim exists then you can't label yourself agnostic with respect to it.
There is disbelief and then there is non-belief/ignorance.
In light of this, now do you see how meaningless it is to speak of "active" versus "passive" disbelief?
But I am bothered by those 'agnostics' who no more believe in God than you or I do, but justify their use of the term because they seem to think that the straw-man atheist -- who KNOWS there is no God, and would NOT believe in God no matter WHAT -- is the standard, normal, "real" atheist, and any admission that they either would or could change their mind given sufficient evidence means they're no longer an atheist.
That's just feeding into the theists' fantasies that atheists are unreasonable and wouldn't change their mind no matter what (so that's why God doesn't bother to provide more evidence of its existence, you see.)
If you don't call yourself an atheist, you're failing the movement!
The term carries a fair amount of baggage, so making the jump from 'agnostic' to 'atheist' implies that you have some strong feelings on the subject -- be they ontological or moral or political or whatever. If someone calls themselves agnostic and aren't clearly one of those of the 'persistent' variety you mentioned, I tend to assume that they're an apatheist.
It's no wonder people have sought a less-loaded alternative to the term. Too bad they chose 'bright.' /wince
#133: You're right.
But there's always the scenario where someone doesn't file their taxes simply because they don't care. They know that they're obligated to, according to some authority whom they don't really acknowledge, but they haven't ever been punished for not filing taxes, and so why should they bother?
Compare that with outright refusal, like Kent Hovind and other "tax deniers," where excuses are fabricated for why tax law is unconstitutional. Perhaps there are still problems with this analogy.
Let's say that my lawn is overgrown, and my neighbor comes over, and says he's trying to sell his house and would appreciate it if I would do some mowing and edging.
If I hate my neighbor, I simply won't cut the grass.
If I look over and see no "for sale" sign, then I've got no evidence that what he's saying is true, and I won't cut the grass (gas and mower maintenance cost money, after all).
No matter what the analogy, "active" disbelief implies malice, bigotry or at least cynicism towards the idea being disbelieved. "Passive" disbelief implies ambivalence, skepticism or an "it's not worth the effort" attitude.
When most people here in the US hear "atheist," they are assuming malice, rightly or wrongly.
Bill Donahue is a violent man. During one TV interview he invited Christopher Hitchens outside for a fight.
That said, I believe they were actually in different states at the time.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8GTs1MISY
I passively disbelieve in the Tooth Fairy.
I mean, sure, the idea of a Tooth Fairy is ludicrous, but I'm not one of those militant fundamentalist a-ToothFairyists who claims such absolute knowledge of the universe such that they can say that a Tooth Fairy does not exist.
And nobody can posit a reasonable explanation of how teeth across the planet are replaced by money. A worldwide conspiracy of parents? Please, I don't have enough faith to believe in that. Clearly, the only reasonable position is complete agnositicsm on the Tooth Fairy question.
Tony,
Please don't lump all of the Catholics under the Donohue banner.
Fair enough. I don't think most of us do.
I wonder if in time, we can come together and reason and talk and constructively add to the betterment of humankind.
Here there's a bit of a problem: the Catholic Church, with its oppression of women and gays, its opposition to birth control, its systematic concealment of child rape, and its lies about condoms letting HIV through, is one of the main obstacles to the betterment of humankind.
DaveW,
It seems to me that the more you try to explain this difference the less this active/passive thing makes sense. First off, I deny that any level of disbelief implies malice or bigotry. Pick a random Christian. That Christian doesn't believe Mohammad had a flying horse any more than an atheist does and both probably find even the idea of Mohammad flying around on a horse ridiculous. Nothing about that disbelief implies they're maliced or bigoted toward Islam and neither the Christian or atheist are agnostic about the existence of Mohammad's flying pony.
Second, you say "active" disbelief is cynical and "passive" disbelief is skeptical, but that doesn't make any more sense. Good luck nailing down the point where skepticism stops being skepticism and become cynicism. You just seem to be twisting into a semantic pretzel.
Most people have been conditioned by religion to be bigots toward atheists. That's no reason for us to deny what we are or use dodges or verbal gymnastics to avoid the bigotry of theists. It's also my opinion that there are several reasons to use "atheist" especially if believers find it confrontational.
First is that it's simply wrong for theists to make atheists feel like outsiders in their own communities. Allowing theists to control what you call yourself is a big part of what gives them the power to make you feel that way.
Second, Nick's absolutely right about religious belief often being an obstacle to the betterment of humankind. Bush's recent birth-control-is-abortion nonsense is another good example and should make it clear that the problem's not limited to any particular denomination.
Third is AA's point about Jesus being no better than Zeus above, which is also kind of the meta-point of PZ's cracker posting. It's about time Christians got it through their heads that their beliefs are not specially privileged. They can hold sacred whatever they choose, but they don't have the right to make other people treat it as sacred or even worthy of respect.
No chance that will ever happen. Most hold faith above everything. Family, career, friends, etc. I doubt any are willing to lessen that just to be better in line with other citizens. I mean they have the ultimate reward for behaving like they are above everyone else.
You know what the deconsonated reminds me most of?
Speaking in tongues.
The death and violence threats are a clear sign of a fundamental insecurity with regards to their world view. They look out on the real world everyday, and see with their own eyes abundant evidence of how feeble and impotent the entity they profess to believe in really is (it doesn't seem to be capable of doing anything, really). They refuse to admit this consciously, and so they internalize it, and it expresses as savage overprotectionism whenever some threat is perceived, which given the feebleness of the subject, is almost all the time.
They are trembling, terrified, pathetic cowards, cowering before the grandeur of the real world.
It is the same process for those who take offense without aggression, only less severe.
Those who are truly secure in their worldview would have simply laughed the whole episode off.
SeanH @139:
That's what I'm trying to talk about. Whether you think there's a distinction between "active" and "passive" atheism, many theists do. It's not uncommon to encounter a theist who thinks that atheists spend as much time thinking about how there is no god as the theists do praying to their god(s). And when corrected on that, they often have trouble comprehending one's ability to simply not think about god.
As I said, to a lot of people, "atheist" means "antitheist" (or "antireligionist"), and that's something that atheists in general should seek to change. And people who truly are antitheists should be attempting to change that usage, also.
The analogies were for illustrative purposes only. Most atheists are of the "I see no evidence for God" sort, while many theists see all atheists as the "hating god" sort. If the analogies are confusing the point because you think I'm trying to suggest that the active/passive distinction is how things ought to be, then ignore them.
@#137:
The Tooth Fairy does too exist! I saw him once, years ago. But there are differences between "reality" and popular fable:
1. The Tooth Fairy looks like a middle-aged male, not a willowy young female.
2. He doesn't have wings and a magic wand, he's wearing a sleeveless undershirt, and staggers when he walks, especially at night.
3. In addition, he's smoking a cigarette, smells of stale cheap beer and diesel fuel, and has a day's growth of beard on his face. Did I mention he also really, really needs a bath?
4. He also looks a lot like my Dad.
5. But he did leave me a quarter. That was a lot of money back in 1961. I got to buy two comic books with it, and had a penny left over for gum!
What the hell is KoT?
Killer of Trolls? ;)
I like the evolution of "fatwa envy" on these threads:
Christians: "Oh sure, pick on Christianity... PZ wouldn't DARE offend Muslims"
Pharyngulites: "Actually, he already has: check the archives."
C: "Um. Ok. But he wouldn't do it AGAIN!"
(PZ includes Koran in the Great Desecration)
C: "Oh yeah, well... uh, Muslims must not have heard about this."
P: "Even after the Catholic League did its best to let them know?"
C: "Yeah, well, you wouldn't dare post links to it on a Muslim message board! THEN the fatwa would really begin!"
I assume in a couple of weeks, they'll be down to proclaiming that PZ wouldn't dare walk through the streets of Riyadh holding a huge placard with a picture of the Great Desecration and yelling "come and get you, you wusses!" through a bullhorn.
Very well said; I like the CFI. (And yes, DJ rocks).
King of Typos.
Rev. BigDumbChimp gave himself the honour after writing a post full of misspellings and grammatical errors.
Since the Rev. BDC also slays trolls, we can accept the two meanings.
I understand typos, as I make enough myself.
You anit seen nothing yet. I gust got a new keyboard. It's not so fun. the same, at yet different . Every thing is a chore.
But at least I got the driver issue settled and things don't lock up so much.
While I love a good troll roast, the KoT is definitely because I'm pretty sure I am the one of the worst typists in history.
And I work in the IT industry so I'm on a keyboard all day so you'd think I would be better.
I give myself a big fat F-
Screechy Monkey @146, you just cracked me up as I was involuntarily assailed by comical imagery. Good one!
As anyone with an OK command of the English language (especially anyone who has taken an Intro course in Critical Thinking) can tell you, the phrase "begging the question" means "presupposing what you're arguing for/arguing in a circular manner". It does emphatically NOT mean the same as "raising the question" or "prompting the question". It is a common mistake, especially among (sports) reporters and journalists with little education, but it is still a glaring error which will easily make the letter look rather amateurish.
You know who gets *really* pissed about this when you point it out to him? John Aravois at AmericaBlog. It's really quite funny to watch him blow a gasket over it, because he does it all the time, and much of his readership is smarter than he is.
Too late, he was impeached by his peers, 32 to 3. This is punishment enough. However, to correct the CFI letter, Catholic Mass does not have to be held in a Church to be valid. Services, not just Catholic, are held at Universities, Hospitals, Nursing Homes, etc, are often held outside a Chapel. This does invalidate the services as they are held where the hosting institution designates.
Since it seems to be all over, a summary timeline I made:
http://vood00.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/timeline-the-great-desecration/