PZ Myers Strikes Back!

July 31, 2008 at 4:44 pm (Uncategorized) (, , , , , , , )

In what appears to be an O’Reilly-Olbermann sort of tiff, PZ is going back and forth with Karl Giberson, a pretentious Salon writer.  It’s actually a nice article.  Onto the hubris!

…he recounts the tale of the “Great Desecration”, but without any of the context, not bothering to mention the hideous history of the Catholic response to rumors of desecration, and not even mentioning Bill Donohue’s bullying tactics.

I must say something about this Great Desecration PZ has been pushing, which a lot of that Salon article is based on.  It’s retarded, plain and simple.  If PZ himself is desecrating hosts, and his followers are desecrating hosts, he needs to take his damn blog down this instant.  If you’re going to desecrate something, you must believe it could have been consecrated in the first place.  If you believe it could have been consecrated, you’re a Catholic, or otherwise a firm believer in God.  If you do not believe it could really have been consecrated, you are absolutely unable to desecrate it, and true believers will laugh at you.  End of story.  So either PZ and his monkeys are wasting a lot of time and communion wafers, or they’re all closet theists.  Win/win!

He babbles on quite a bit about this bizarre fantasy that we’re trying to replicate the silly superstitions and rituals of his idea of religion. Sacred blogs? Saints? This is just foolishness of his own invention.

He also talks in very clear, repetitive hypotheticals.  The sanctity was never his point, the point was the hard-headed refusal to discuss these issues like the adults we claim to be, or to treat science as the flawed creature it always has been.  Even now there are many methodological problems with how we do science, down to the institutional hierarchy of who is privy to its knowledge and secrets.  How is a Professor unlike a Bishop?  Are lectures not holy?  Students must repeat what they are told, regardless of accuracy (at least if they want a good grade).

Right there in the critical post I wrote, I said plainly, “Gould and Dawkins do not claim that evolution as a religion, or that it should be treated as one, and neither do I; that would be ridiculous, since if I were equating the two, that would mean I think people ought to grow out of their absurd faith in evolution.” In the desecration post, I plainly said that nothing should be sacred.

It’s pretty hard to argue with somebody who misses the point entirely.  Like I said about the desecration though, you literally can’t do it if you hold nothing sacred.  I find it amusing that his latest biggest hit with the crowds is completely illegitimate.

I might add that historically, Christians murdered Jews by the thousands for imaginary desecrations; I tossed an unpalatable scrap of bad bread in a garbage can. Any comparisons he wants to make will not flatter religion.

When you go for sensationalism, chances are you know you’re wrong.  People tend to use religion to justify doing shitty things; religion itself does not cause the vast majority of those shitty things, and forbids almost all of them.  The real question is, does violence on blogs on the internet encourage violence in real life?

It also makes Salon look foolish, that they would put an article written by someone with a patent grudge front and center.

I found the article reasonable and intelligently written.  I think PZ is just upset that he actually has a nasty grudge, and will never be allowed onto a classy site like Salon.


Permalink Leave a Comment

The Requisite Explanation

July 31, 2008 at 6:09 am (Uncategorized) (, , , , )

PZ Myers is a douchebag.

He is a professor of biology at some university in Minnesota.  All respect for that much; academia requires a certain mental fortitude which most of us rightly lack.  The real fun comes with what these people do in response to their lost sanity.  My mother has a Ph.D in accounting and a professorship, and spends most evenings organizing her stamp collection.  I know at least two math professors who run marathons, and a geology professor who avidly collects coins.

PZ Myers preaches to his loud, obnoxious choir.  On the internet.

What about?  First, he’d take great issue with my rhetoric, for he is a fanatical athiest.  He perhaps wouldn’t argue with that rhetoric, even though fanaticism has its roots in religion.  PZ Myers is Richard Dawkins, but on the internet.  He is so fervently sure that there is no God or anything in the universe that can go beyond experimentation, he ringleads what is effectively the religion of Athiesm.  Although he claims to hold no god before science, he is curiously immune to logic and reason.  Yet what else is religion but a belief strong enough that the believer is willing to eschew evidence, reason, and logic for its sake?  He also uses a lot of sarcasm when quoting his opponents (who are usually right), but as a bitch once told me, sarcasm is the poor man’s irony.

Normally, I have nothing against obnoxious internet celebrities and their retarded fans, but this is the new Rush Limbaugh we’re talking about.  He makes my blood boil and reading anything he writes pains me.  Unfortunately, a) I’m not getting rid of my ScienceBlogs RSS because most other blogs on that roll are quality, and b) he seems to be enough out of legal trouble that he’s back to posting.  The frustrating thing about Pharyngula is, you want to lash back at him, spit in his face, tell him how and why he’s wrong.  But should you comment, not only will he neither listen nor care, but his barbaric hordes will be unleashed upon you, drowning the most well-articulated post in a sea of filth.

He may be free of Catholic guilt, but he will not be free of scrutiny.


I should annotate this with some disclosure; while baptized as a child, I do not adhere to any religion.  While I think a godhead and afterlife are satisfying fantasies, I do think they ultimately remain fantasies.  I have nothing wrong with people whose beliefs against a set-in-stone sort of spiritual hierarchy are firmer and more developed than mine, but I do have a problem when it’s in backlash to dogma to the effect of becoming dogma in itself.

Permalink Leave a Comment