Archive for Religion/Buddhism

The End of a Cracker

PZ Myers posted the “desecration” of a cracker - the consecrated wafer used by Catholics during Mass - today, including a history of the murder of Jews who were - collectively - accused of desecrating crackers by (supposedly) stabbing them (and thus Jesus in the bizarre logic of the Catholic church). In commemoration of these persecutions, Myers also stabbed the cracker by piercing a rusty nail through it. However, he didn’t stop there. He also pinned down a copy of the Qur’an and The God Delusion. Yupp, that’s right: Richard Dawkins’ book. The point he was trying to make was that “nothing must be held sacred.” In addition to recounting history starting in 1215, PZ’s post includes some of the threats he has received, a brief update on the UCF student who started this particular episode of crackergate, and these words of wisdom right after the picture of the desecrated items:

I didn’t want to single out just the cracker, so I nailed it to a few ripped-out pages from the Qur’an and The God Delusion. They are just paper. Nothing must be held sacred. Question everything. God is not great, Jesus is not your lord, you are not disciples of any charismatic prophet. You are all human beings who must make your way through your life by thinking and learning, and you have the job of advancing humanities’ knowledge by winnowing out the errors of past generations and finding deeper understanding of reality. You will not find wisdom in rituals and sacraments and dogma, which build only self-satisfied ignorance, but you can find truth by looking at your world with fresh eyes and a questioning mind.

The first comment shows how difficult it will be to break the religion-habit…

Comments

Crackers and Other Mental Acrobatics

Last I checked, there was a period called The Enlightenment between our current time and the Dark Ages. But apparently not everyone has benefited from enlightenment as recent news make clear. As the Anglican church prepares to open their doors to women bishops, at least one current bishop is so distraught, he’s trying to switch religions: From Anglican to Catholic. My church history is a bit sketchy but wasn’t the Anglican church founded in protest of something the Catholics did? Oh, yes, some king of England didn’t get the divorce he wanted, so he just formed his own church. Okay, maybe things are a bit more nuanced than that but essentially King Henry VIII who loved to marry seceded from the Catholic church in 1534 to get one of those marriages annulled. Now, apparently, letting women have equal rights is enough to run back to the original church. (Hat tip to Jender for the link!)

And then there’s Crackergate. A university student in Florida took a souvenir from a Catholic church, except it wasn’t just any souvenir, it was the small bread wafer used by Catholics during mass. Now he’s being accused of kidnapping Christ (never mind that Jesus died a couple millenia ago, if he ever lived, and now supposedly sits next to god, or does that come later? In any case, he’s dead and his body was never found). But that was only the beginning of Crackergate. PZ Myers dared to pick up this story and in his usual non-mincing style explained what he thought of the whole upset: It’s a cracker!. Now he’s being burned at the (for now figurative) stake: The Catholic League, which claims to defend Catholics’ civil rights, apparently doesn’t care about anybody else’s civil rights, like freedom of speech. They want PZ Myers fired from his assistant professorship at the University of Minnesota. And all that because PZ called a cracker a cracker. As I told the President of the U of M in an email supporting PZ: “I think Catholics have the right to pretend that the cracker used at mass is something other than a cracker (as a former Protestant, I never quite understood this). But I do not think they have the right to impose their fantasy on anyone else, which they are doing by acting offended about PZ’s post and, actually, about the original incident as well.”

Crackergate ties in interestingly with a recent discussion I’ve had over at the Feminist Philosophers’ Blog on hate speech and freedom of speech. The Catholic League is claiming that PZ Myers uttered hate speech. Actually, some are even claim it’s a hate crime. Sigh. (I wish commentators on PZ’s blog would stop the name calling, though. That is always uncalled for, imo.) And what’s the crime, if there is any? There is absolutely no hate crime here (maybe some poorly chosen words but that’s not a crime - we’d all be in prison if it were; and, yes, PZ threatened to “treat [consecrated communion wafers] with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse.” Okay, what kind of “heinous cracker abuse” can there possibly be?!? Maybe he’ll - gasp - eat it!). I think that PZ had the right to call a cracker a cracker. I wouldn’t have said some of the things he said but he’s not one to mince words. Even Fox said that the “small bread wafer [is] to Catholics symbolic of the Body of Christ.” It’s a symbol for crying out loud (or do they believe in magic? Sorry, I don’t get this mental acrobatic…)! It means something more than what it is to those people to whom it symbolizes something. It is what it is to people who don’t buy into that symbology. Demanding that everybody else sees the symbol the same way is just ridiculous - and it shows quite a bit of insecurity. Just like gay marriage doesn’t do anything to straight marriages, calling a cracker a cracker doesn’t do anything to someone who sees it as a symbol of something under certain circumstances unless that person isn’t quite sure about that symbolism. Plus, if you can make up the story that a cracker changes into something else, why not make up the story that once that wafer leaves the church it magically turns back into a cracker? That would resolve the whole thing. And it would be a very good way to protect against wafer kidnapping. To get up in arms about this symbol and calling it a kidnapping is simply silly (how can you kidnap a person who died millenia ago - assuming he ever lived - who is just symbolically present)? We need to learn to distinguish symbols from what they are symbolizing. By prosecuting people for, say, burning the U.S. flag, we are undermining the very freedoms this flag symbolizes. By screaming bloody murder over the cracker, any claim by the Catholic church makes that they are supporting love and hope become tainted (okay, a look at the church history does that even more).

Comments (5)

Science and God

I just got the latest eSkeptic, a weekly email sent by the Skeptic Society. Michael Schermer has just edited a pamphlet for the (gasp) Templeton Foundation entitled “Does Science Make Belief in God Obsolete?”. Although I think that Schermer made the skeptic equivalent of a Faustian bargain, and with that gave Templeton false credibility, the question is interesting, especially in light of many religious-wrong groups’ argument that science undermines religion. Since Templeton has enough money, the essays are available for a free read online

The full list of essayists includes:

On the “Yes” side
  • Victor Stenger: Yes. Worse. Science renders belief in God incoherent.
  • Steven Pinker: Yes, if by science we include secular reason and knowledge.
  • Pervez Hoodbhoy: Not necessarily. You must find a science-compatible God.
  • Stuart Kauffman: No, if we redefine God as creativity in the universe.
  • Chrisopher Hitchens: No, but it should.
  • Michael Shermer: It depends: belief no, God yes.
On the “No” side
  • Mary Midgley: Of course not, belief in God is not a scientific question.
  • Kenneth Miller: Of course not. Science expands our appreciation of the Divine.
  • William D. Phillips: Absolutely not! Belief in God is not a scientific matter.
  • Robert Sapolsky: No. Belief offers something that science doesn’t.
  • Jerome Groopman: No. Not at all.
  • Keith Ward: No.
  • Christoph Cardinal Schönborn: No.

I agree with Victor Stenger’s answer and highly recommend his book God: The Failed Hypothesis. It makes a very good case on why science can indeed say something about the existence of God, though we have to carefully define God and set up clear hypotheses that can be tested. If we accept that premise, and Stenger makes a convincing case, we can test God’s existence like any other hypothesis. There is overwhelming evidence that the hypothesis of God’s existence is wrong. After reading Stenger’s book, I feel that any other argument is intellectually dishonest. Maybe I need to read Ken Miller’s answer…

I also like Steven Pinker (PDF) summary sentence at the end of his short but thorough answer:

Science, in the broadest sense, is making belief in God obsolete, and we are the better for it.

Comments (2)

Two Views of the Universe

Richard Eckersley presents in his book Well & Good “two scientific descriptions of the world, which represent the extremes of the modern scientific worldview” (220). At least that is his claim. He first presents a description by Richard Dawkins from his article God’s Utility Function in Scientific American:

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

     Continue reading this post » » »

Comments (2)

Immoral Religion

Atheists are routinely asked if there can be morality without religion. I am pretty tired of this question because the influence of religion has created a lot of immorality. It is time to turn this question around: Can there be morality with religion? I would say “no.” Religions provide a list of things to do or not to do but they do not train us in ethics that go beyond these lists. Critical thinking, which is very important to ethics, is suppressed within religion.

If religions were bastions of morality, their followers should be especially moral and ethical. That is clearly not the case. All too often, religious arguments have been used for immoral acts. Here are a few examples going beyond the witch hunt, the inquisition, and “honor” killings, which clearly were immoral and religiously motivated.      Continue reading this post » » »

Comments (1)

Religiously Motivated Violence Against Women

Crimes committed against women because they are not following religious doctrines are increasing at an alarming rate in Iraq, reports AlterNet: “Violence against women is rampant, rising every day with the power of the militias. Beheadings, rapes, beatings, suicides through self-immolation, genital mutilation, trafficking and child abuse masquerading as marriage of girls as young as nine are all on the increase.” The voices inside Iraq who are speaking out against this violence are themselves threatened with death.      Continue reading this post » » »

Comments (1)