COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

Hitlerian anti-Semitism continues to be a poor analogy to what Dr. Myers has done unless a desecrated Host has historically been the symbol under which millions of Catholics have been slaughtered, or unless a swastika is itself a desecration of the “most sacred” Jewish religious symbol.

Is either one true?  If not, then Rod Dreher is yet another boy who cried “wolf,” and is doing nothing more than stirring up anti-atheist bigotry through his own persecution complex.

Dreher, Akin and McArdle also seem to mistake objects for ideas.  Dr. Myers has in no way suggested that all objects should be equally worthless, only that all ideas should be equally open to criticism.

Most of the people criticizing Dr. Myers’ actions seem to have no problems being highly critical of his ideas, but hypocritically demand “respect” for their own.  And that’s the point of this whole mess.

Comment by Dave W. on 7/27/08 at 1:19 am

it is ironic that the start of this particular issue was Webster Cook, “yet another boy who cried “wolf,” and is doing nothing more than stirring up anti-*religious* bigotry through his own persecution complex.

And the difference between PZ Myer and his critics is that they are not ‘going after’ Myers, as he is going after them. This belies your characterization of atheists as people who simply wish for tolerance. You can tolerate anyone who minds their own business as the people at the Catholic sservice did, but as Cook didn’t, and Myers didn’t. To punish someone who invades your space on false pretences and with malicious and provocative intent is not a case for tolerance and should not be supported.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/27/08 at 2:25 am

Mr. Plonie,

Are you suggesting that Webster Cook has not been impeached?  Are you suggesting that Wester Cook was not physically assaulted?  Are you suggesting that Webster Cook is not a Catholic?  Are you suggesting that Webster Cook did not receive death threats?  Are you suggesting that Webster Cook was not singled out by Bill Donohue?

Webster Cook is by no means a completely innocent victim in all of this, but to suggest that he’s done nothing more than stir up hatred of his own religion through his own persecution complex is simply bizarre in light of the facts.

As for the rest of your comment, Mr. Plonie, it simply suggests that your “enthusiasm” for engaging in part of a debate that you once clearly invited waxes and wanes unpredictably.  I’m not sure that I have any obligation to address your allegations when you clearly feel no need to reciprocate.  If you want to hash out the “tolerance” thing, then my eight points remain waiting for your response in the other thread.  Otherwise, it looks to me like your complaints are based upon nothing more than your own anti-atheist bigotry.

Comment by Dave W. on 7/27/08 at 3:04 am

Taking the last first, you cannot expect these kinds of discussions to take place in real time (except by coincidence). I can go a WHOLE DAY (or more !!!) without sitting at a desk or computer. Besides, while a response like this one is fairly spontaneous, one confronting a million words and thousands of pages of intellectual discourse takes me some thought and care if I am to address the significant issues. I could easily throw together a piece of performance art like the all too common posts that would be “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” (Macbeth, Act V, Scene 5). But out of respect I will take some time although it is again almost 2AM here.

The suggestion of anti-atheist bigotry is absurd in light of your collective self-image as people minding your own business. While there are Jewish words for ‘apostates’ and ‘deniers’, the relevant ancient term used most commonly is ‘Epicurean’, for the fundamentally and exclusively materialist and egotistical Greek sect. So you see these battles are extremely old. These are the essential qualities qualities seen as those hindering one from the recognition of God. Of course we all have those qualities but it is the exclusivity of the Epicureans that is at issue. To an Epicurean, what you see is what you get, there is no meaning or purpose to existence or life, nothing is sacred, and to take is another step, altruism is for suckers, and the end justifies the means. You might agree with those themes. You may also recognize this view as what we call sociopathic.

From here http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/07/10/atheism-darwinism-and-morality/
“Epicurus (341-271 BC). Epicurus argued that our lives are ruined by the continual dread of the gods, either zapping us in this life for crossing their entirely fickle wills, or if we escape that, torturing us in Hades after death. The cure? Epicurus invented a universe in which the gods couldn’t exist. He was the first atheist to use materialism to god-proof the cosmos…”

“... Aldous Huxley ... said candidly of his atheism, ‘For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust… There was one admirably simple method of ... justifying ourselves in our political and erotical revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever’. For Huxley and friends, the desire for sex untethered to morality demanded that God be cut loose from the world. Happily, as Huxley noted later, he realized that this was an intellectual error.”

(And he goes on to Chritopher Hitchens et al)

And not in that page but nevertheless, Hitler stated outright that his overriding battle against the Jews was that they had overlaid the natural pagan order with an unnatural conscience (laid out in great detail and ideology and in concrete policies and programs of course).

So these are the emotional factors at play in the atheist debate. We will address the intellectual ones too, probably on that other thread,  but let us not pretend that the atheist belief system is grounded in rationality and a searcg for truth alone.

Next to last, if you admit that Webster Cook is not an innocent victim, that is progress. Cook was raised Catholic and knew exactly what he was doing. His intentions are also proven malicious by the simple fact that he did not desist and apologize immediately. The ‘host’ was not given to him personally as a present or a possession but as participant in a communal rite that he had no (premeditated) intention of actually joining, nor in a place belonging to him or under his authority, and could thus be considered stolen. To extend that further, let’s admit that if this was a case involving the totems of a fraternal organization like the Masons or the Elks, or a national college fraternity or even a political organization, he might well be thrashed and his ass tossed onto the cement outside at the very least. The Catholics in this case exercised great forbearance.

And first, Webster Cook was not impeached either by Catholics nor for taking the host nor by their pressure or influence, but by his Student Government peers for misrepresenting his position and authority to attend the Catholic service and exert his agenda there. As people in the public sphere and with hard won reputations to uphold, they have to repsect and protect a variety of communities and constituencies. That will do it for now.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/28/08 at 1:00 am

P.S. I meant to conclude the thought about the understandability of the human responses to someone demeaning the highest symbols of ones core values: if you take my meaning about the Elks and fraternities, then you can see that your )and Myers’) outrage is directed against the Catholics for not transcending their humanity, for not being sufficiently ‘Christlike’. This is like a certain guy around here who foams at the mouth because Jewish fundamentalist communities contain some who are not perfect pure and humble saints at all times, an unrealistic standard. a bit of reflection will show you where the bigotry lies.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/28/08 at 1:07 am

Dr. Wiker, a fellow of an institute devoted to the destruction of science, is patently wrong about Epicurus (who believed in the gods, he just didn’t think they punished anyone), and mistakes the others’ rejection of a “traditional Christian” morality for the rejection of all morality.  Muehlenberg takes up Wiker’s poisoning of the well and carries it to an absurd extreme, blissfully assured that every atheist that admits to having an emotional basis for his beliefs is being “honest,” and all other atheists are lying to themselves (and others).  He then makes the utterly ludicrous statement that atheists seek to take the place of a being that they don’t think exists.

That you, Mr. Plonie, uncritically repeat Muehlenberg’s quotes of Wiker’s quotes, and even suggest - contrary to the facts - that Epicurus promoted what amounts to sociopathy, and imply that Hitler meant “atheist” when he said “pagan,” shows me exactly where the bigotry lies.

That “red pill” comment in the other thread gets funnier and funnier.

Comment by Dave W. on 7/29/08 at 8:10 pm

At the very least, Myers should apologise to the Catholic and Muslim community.  What he has done was highly improper.

Comment by Jason on 7/30/08 at 8:47 am

Don’t read anything into the fact that I retrieved the text for the quotes from Muehlenberg/Wikler. I don’t know who they are, although they appear to be in the same ballpark if not precisely the same page as I am on the issue. I just used them as handy source to cut and paste the quote from Aldous Huxley which I read before the invention of the personal computer and searched for. My link was not to invoke the page’s authority but just not to be challenged on the existence of the quote. The Epicurus bit was just a bonus; Jews have been calling atheists Epicureans for all of the centuries since Epicurus. I can’t tell you if Muehlenberg/Wikler were aware of that or if they have merely followed the same logic. I am not saying that Epicurus promoted sociopathy (he might have, I just don’t know), just that the philosophy he espoused opened the door to it, which to repeat necessarily implies “...what you see is what you get, there is no meaning or purpose to existence or life, nothing is sacred, and to take is another step, altruism is for suckers, and the end justifies the means.” I invited you to react to thoise implications. Try to be specific.

Well, having disposed of the ad hominem misdirection, what did you think of the points I made? Y’know, the progression from egotism and materialism to amorality to immorality to evil? The fact is that our humanity exceeds our capacity to fully realize and comprehend it. The religious explanation is that humanity is an atom of godliness donated by God himself. The atheist explanation is that there is no greater agent or cause exceeding humans. Not so absurd at all.

Hitler said: Providence has ordained that I should be the greatest liberator of humanity. I am freeing man from the restraints of an intelligence that has taken charge, from the dirty and degrading self-mortifications of a false vision known as conscience and morality, and from the demands of a freedom and personal independence which only a very few can bear.

He also said: “The Ten Commandments have lost their vitality. Conscience is a Jewish invention; it is a blemish, like circumcision.”

Conscience and morality are not at all common sense or obvious, and at the time of Abraham and Sinai the world was an overwhelmingly cruel and foul and unjust place, as it is today in so many places. There is no practical difference in this respect between atheism and paganism, whether to say there is no higher moral authority at all or to say that there is a power that mandates and justifies any of man’s worst impulses.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/30/08 at 11:24 am

Looks to me like a definitive etymology linking “Apiqoros” (can’t do the Hebrew letters, which are meaning-free to me anyway) to “Epicurus” is lacking, Mr. Plonie.  It’s possible, but I can’t find anything authoritative.

But Epicurus doesn’t appear to have been any of the things you describe, anyway.  Why don’t _you_ go try Google this time?

And you’ve got to be kidding about the pagan thing, because what you’ve said should pretty much be an insult to all non-Abrahamaic theists.  That’s who the pagans were, in Hitler’s day, long before the motorocycle gang or the 1990s’ newage “Neopaganism.”

Comment by Dave W. on 7/30/08 at 2:48 pm

Fortunately, it makes no difference. It may not be possible to show a direct etymological link, but the Hebrew/Aramaic word means “one irreverent of authority or religion, skeptic, heretic”, by extension of a root meaning “to break into, declare free or ownerless, to be ireverent, skeptical, licentious”. , and those were exactly the characteristics of the followers of Epicureanism. While Epicurus himself recommended moderation for practical reasons, his “highest good/evil” was pleasure/pain, and while he took care to avoid the fate of Socrates he classified the gods as part of the material universe and uninvolved with humans. He taught an absence of spiritually based morality, and his school lasted seven centuries until banned by the church. That time period was congruent with that of the evolution and codification of the Talmud in which the word is used. During that period the lingua franca of the Jews was Aramaic and whatever Greek they needed to cope with the Greek and Roman empires (citizens of the Roman empire, at least the non-Romans spoke Greek, not primarily Latin). They were familiar with Epicureans, and though I don’t usually refr to the new Testament there is a reference in Acts 17:18 to Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, between 3 and 4 centuries after their founders had discorporated.

So, What about “... just that the philosophy he espoused opened the door to [sociopathy], which to repeat necessarily implies “...what you see is what you get, there is no meaning or purpose to existence or life, nothing is sacred, and to take another step, altruism is for suckers, and the end justifies the means.”

don’t you get? The reason the church banned Epicureanism was not that they had a different religioun, but because their followers had by then degenerated into the kind of hedonism that was weakening the Roman society.

I am not at all kidding about the pagan thing. Sorry to insult anybody, but for one thing Abrahamic theism is understood by us to be a revival of Adamic/Noahide theism, the oldest original theology of humankind, and conversely polytheism/pantheism, to a degree panentheism and other forms that don’t come to mind right now as pathological and degenerate developments.

For Hitler, paganism was not so much a theology as the state of spirituality in Europe prior to the imposition of Christianity upon them. The Arab moon worship was also a kind of paganism before they were subjugated under the faith of Mohammed.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 8/03/08 at 2:09 am

Okay, so you want to ascribe the source of modern atheism to a guy whose followers - centuries after his death - had devolved into a group for whom “altruism was for suckers, and the end justifies the means,” despite Epicurus not actually teaching such a thing and modern atheists not following such hedonistic ways as a group?  Obviously, causal reality holds nothing on you, you’re free to invent whatever connections you wish.  Have at.

And the insult to pagans is that you’ve equated them with atheists.  Most Hindus, Jains, Druids, Wiccans, or whatever other “ists” you can think of would be pretty annoyed to find out that you think that because they don’t answer to _your_ God, they have no “higher moral authority” or that they think that evil actions are justified.

But wait: “Adamic/Noahide theism, the oldest original theology of humankind?”  You’re a Jewish young-Earth creationist, then?

Comment by Dave W. on 8/03/08 at 3:37 pm

Focus, Dave W. What I said is “... the philosophy he espoused OPENED THE DOOR TO etc.” I did not say he preached it, only that he preached moderation for practical reasons. However, you and your heroes and buddies are essentially Epicureans. None of these ideas are new.

Nor is ‘causal reality’. What I think you want to say is that modern atheism developed in reaction by the renaissance philosophes to church doctrine. In fact the early philosophes were quite taken with the Jewish viewpoint as the only credible alternative path to their historic views, but that changed in the next generation with Voltaire leading the nastiness charge. I am not a Christian so I can well understand their rejecting the Church, but in turning against the Jewish truths they threw the baby out with the bathwater.

That said, when it comes to essential truths nobody is shy about claiming authenticity. It’s not personal, it’s not emotional, it’s just a fact. If anyone informs me that “Hindus, Jains, Druids, Wiccans” or athe-“ists” for that matter claim to know what’s really going on, how effective is it for me to scold and chide them for being impolite? They all do claim that and so do you. I don’t consider you impolite, just wrong.

You will I hope admit that there can be one and only one absolute reality, while I maintain (and you may even agree) that it is impossible for any finite entity to apprehend it, and that reality is only relative in that regard. Or, your reality and mine are different only shaped by our limitations. That is the Jewish argument in a nutshell, with the added element that that absolute reality is conscious and purposeful and unitary and causative and in active process and extends beyond any conceivable limitation of space, time and the imagination. And that this has become known to humans by given events and essential attributes.

So there is one kind of summary of my god, and all people are free to answer to reality or not. If the response is that we are going to have it all figured out Real Soon Now, or in the conceivable future, or that one must answer to ‘Mumbo’, ‘Jumbo’ and Curly, you have lost us, as polite as we try to be.

But wait: No, I am not making it so easy on you as all that. I am an old-Earth creationist in the Dr. Gerald Schroeder school of thought. He has mapped a congruence in the Biblical creation account with Big Bang cosmology physics and and evolutionary biology. Not coincidentally, he has dual doctorates in physics and biology from MIT, and served on the Atomic Energy Commission. Just establishing some street cred, in the face of the fact that Dawkins and Hitchens have no credential in their pretty discussion of those fields nor in philosophy or theology.

Anyway, according to this paticular approach, both events and probabilities fall into proper perspective, and the particular Cro-magnon ancestor we refer to as ‘Adam’ did indeed live 5768 years ago, infused with an acknowlegement and interaction with reality at a level never again to be attained after his brief peak. This is perhaps a story that many or most or all of us can relate to. The account of the formation of Eve appears to be more metaphorical but we may only assume she was a fitting soul mate; not for tonight the answers to everything. But the Biblical point being that humanity is not defined as has been attempted by bipedality, toolmaking, language etc., but by perhaps a capacity for abstraction and imagination at a level with which to interface with a larger picture than our immediate spacial and temporal surroundings. The contemporary humanoids by this definition accomplished nothing more than any other animal, albeit with greater intelligence.

Ah well, let’s see if that is food for thought and discussion.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 8/04/08 at 12:57 am

Mr. Plonie,

Saying that random atheists on the Internet are “essentially” Epicureans is exactly like saying that anyone who wears a brown shirt is a Nazi, in that you’re taking a single point of commonality (if that much, in your case) and making a tremendously hasty generalization from it that has no basis in reality.  Atheism is not (and has never been) a philosophy, it doesn’t say anything about what is good or bad, or how one should live one’s life.  Epicureanism was and did.  For example, I agree with precisely one of the Epicureans’ tenets: that I won’t be punished or rewarded after I die.  Nothing follows from that, it’s not a premise for some larger worldview like it was for Epicurus.  Perhaps you’d like to explain how that makes me “essentially” an Epicurean without resorting to further prejudice.

I will agree that I think there can be only a single objective reality (other ideas lead to madness).  I can only go further and say that due to all of our limitations, the methods of science are the best way (with a proven track record of success) to discover the closest approximation to reality that we can know (right now).  This is not to say that the methods we have now will always be the best, nor is it to say that other epistemic methods cannot stumble across the same facts.

Revelation and other religious epistemic methods, specifically, are wholly unreliable as shown by the fact that the use of such methods have resulted in no fewer than 40,000 distinct and often contradictory religious sects throughout human history (which extends farther back than 5,768 years).  If religious methods of gathering knowledge were reliable, then all theologians should have long ago reached a consensus on our objective spiritual reality using them.  All other religions would comprise tiny minorities of worshippers who would rightly be regarded as cranks.  And given that I am leaning more and more towards evidentialism these days, I’d be hard-pressed to avoid saying that not only are religious methods utter failures, but their practitioners are also immoral because they encourage belief despite the demonstrable unreliablity of the methods.

Oh, and what can be said about Dr. Schroeder?  Ignoring the obvious problems with his knowledge of physics (he makes a mockery of his own “street cred” in his books), as soon as he argues that God could have used this-or-that physical phenomenon to perform His Works, Dr. Schroeder leaves science for the realm of wild speculation and wishful thinking.  Because despite all of his hard work at “reconciling” religion and science, he still lacks an evidenciary foundation for the mere existence of God.  Any god.

You and Dr. Schroeder are, of course, entitled to your opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.  And the facts show that people had been doing the things that make us human (in 2008) thousands of years before 3,760 BCE.  Language, by the way, _is_ an example of abstraction at a very high level.  You remind me of the folks who say that the Egyptian pyramids were built by extraterrestrials, implying that the Egyptians themselves must have been stupid.  Except you’re not calling ancient people stupid, you’re calling them inhuman.  Dr. Schroeder made it clear that he thinks of them as soulless animals, and it looks from what you’ve written that you would agree.

It’s ironic that someone who suggested that there is no positive program for atheism would so heartlessly dehumanize neolithic people just to make yourself more comfortable in your religious beliefs.

Comment by Dave W. on 8/06/08 at 9:14 pm

Webster Cook would have already been expelled or killed by Bill Donohue’s terrorist cult, if PZ Myers hadn’t shone a national spotlight on the issue.  Neither Dreher, nor the mainstream media, nor this article here, has really taken seriously the dangerous degree of brutish violence that Donohue’s clique represents, or the eagerness with which they unleash that brutish violence at anyone who offends them in any way.  Mohammed newspaper cartoons, anybody?

Comment by TTT on 8/12/08 at 3:00 pm

This Jewish person has discovered that PZ Myers is a charlatan and a hypocrite who hides a very different agenda to liberalism:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/bravo_belgium.php

Comment by Becky on 6/25/10 at 1:24 pm

Comparing desecrating the eucharist to painting swastikas on a synagogue? Come on this is a completely ridiculous comparison.

The eucharist is his property, he bought it/got it and as such he is free to destroy, or do whatever he wants with it. Catholics may view that as a desecration, but to a non believer is just a cracker.

You can compare it to buy a copy of the torah, painting swastikas on it and posting the images on the net. That would be a more reasonable comparison; you might find it offensive and that is your right.

As a person born in a Jewish family and brought up in the Jewish tradition I can say that Judaism is an hypersensitive, look and finds antisemitism everywhere. It serves a purpose, group cohesion. Being a closed religion that mostly propagates through breeding (as opposed to evangelism), having an external perceived enemy is useful.

You might find painting swastikas on a Torah offensive but that solely does not imply that the person who did it is an antisemite. He might just be making the point….

Comment by rl on 9/15/10 at 9:29 pm

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

About this Blog

Blog Home
About the Blogger(s)
Contact

Blog Archive

• By Month
• Categories

• By Month
• Categories