Last week biology professor P.Z. Myers
desecrated the Eucharist by
first piercing it with a rusty nail (well we pierced Jesus with a nail
before) and then tossed it in a garbage can and covered it with coffee
grounds and a banana peel.
Catholics for the most part have responded
by praying for the man and
committing themselves to doing reparations for the desecration of the
Eucharist. We don’t issue fatwas though we might understandably write
letters to the state university he is employed by for violating their
conduct code. Even if we see him as an attention grabbing jerk he is
still a person in the image of the God he denies and out of love for
him we pray for his conversion. In fact the first comment on
his blog entry was “May God have mercy on your soul.”
He mocks what we know is sacred out of a
misguided materialist view and our of a faith in science that he wants
to have answer more than it can answer. Dr. Anthony Rizzi who is a
physicist writes in his outstanding book The
Science Before Science: A Guide to Thinking in the 21st Century
tunnel vision that
scientists often develop in their empiro-metric view of the world.
For them philosophy is not a science at all though they live
by philosophy of scientism. Out of ignorance they don’t know
that modern science grew out of Christianity and that it was clergy and
Catholic layman that were behind so many discoveries that further
developed the scientific method. They forget that it is
because of our non-material intellect that we can even do science to
investigate the material world in the first place.
Since Mr. Myers has so little appreciation
of Catholics since we are so stupid and he is so superior I though was
would someone as stupid as myself do to get back at Mr. Myers for this
desecration. I though hey “An eye for an eye” and all of
that. So what might a biology professor like P.Z. Myers hold
sacred? I though obviously a microscope since without it his
field would not have gone very far. So I asked my readers if
somebody could provide me with a microscope and one person slipped me
one
To show that this device has no power of
its own without a non-material intellect I first pierced it with a
rusty nail, and then desecrated it with holy water since obviously a
practice such as that offends scientism. I then tossed it in
the trash with a banana peel.
Science did not prevent me from doing any
of this and the microscope and every other tool is just a construct of
our immaterial intellects. So free yourself from scientism
The scientific method is itself a being of reason and not
provable
by the scientific method. The
empiro-metric method while quite useful for studying the
intelligibility of the world comes short when it come to ontology.
Ontological question are aided by these branches of science but the
empiro-metric view can’t be used to prove ontological questions.
The three layers of abstraction Metaphysical, Mathematica,
and Physica are not at odds to each other and we need to return to the
view that theology is the queen of the sciences, though this does not
change the importance of the other sciences. Faith vs.
science is a silly debate when there is not a “versus” only an “and.”
By the way I do highly recommend The
Science Before Science: A Guide to Thinking in the 21st Century
recently read. It is a great introduction both to philosophy and how it
relates to the sciences. A densely packed read, but highly
worthwhile.
32 comments
But how could Myers be sure that the host was consecrated?
Maybe (just to be on the safe side) he used an unconsecrated one.
Stoo,
Great questions.
1) What can prove logic? Well, now you’ve come to the great error of the enlightenment, how can reason ever prove itself? A system based on PURE reason without consideration of reason’s source is going to eventually have some big problems (Modernity and Post-Modernity). If reason (logic) is only an illusion in our heads, it is entirely unreliable. However, if it exists outside of us (as a metaphysical reality) then it must have a metaphysical cause. In other words: if reason exists it logically follows that reason has an author, namely, God (maybe not the God of Christianity, but a God none-the-less).
But again, what can prove logic? As much as atheists hate to admit this… trusting in reason and logic is a leap of faith. Yes, they do have faith 🙂 Faith that reason and logic actually exist, function, and are reliable. They must trust something they can neither see, nor prove, and may sometimes even doubt. Faith 🙂
2) What are the consequences of the scientific method being unable to prove itself? Well, the primary consequence is that we must admit that there are sources of knowledge OTHER than the scientific method. Folks like Myers build their entire (foolish) worldview around the mistaken belief that no knowledge exists outside the scientific method.
People abuse the scientific method when they try to use it learn things that are beyond science. Properly understood, the scientific method is a powerful tool with a limited scope. Some have elevated science to a religion, and so believe that the scientific method provides knowledge that it is incapable of providing. Every science (including philosophy and theology) have limitations that must be acknowledged and respected.
3) Concerning sentience: if human consciousness can ever be proven to be a purely scientific and material phenomenon, then humans will be forced to admit that free will does not exist. Pure materialism means absolutely 0 free will.
This is so astonishingly dumb.
A microscope is not remotely sacred. Not even to P.Z. Meyers.
…and…
PZ doesn’t worship a microscope or believe it is a sacred object.
Now I see what Jeff meant in his recent post about how some people obviously didn’t understand the satirical nature of his microscope desecration idea! I thought it was pretty funny myself. 🙂
Well said.
In an audio podcast available here, Katie van Schaijik and Alice von Hildebrand talk about the flaws with the materialist point-of-view, and Katie quotes Benedict XVI on this matter. The basic idea: science cannot explain questions of ontology or unravel the mystery of personhood.
It’s a great lecture entitled Truth and Panic. One wonders if Professor Myers isn’t a bit panicked…
I’m glad for Catholics like you. I wish more were like you and fewer sent death threats.
Note that I specifically am NOT saying or even trying to imply that those are in the majority; they aren’t, but the people who hate the church will only see them, and when informed of the good ones like you they’ll just say “oh, that’s nice, but check out this HATE MAIL.”
Scientific Materialist:
“Jeff, I’ll do some Laplacian calculations for the scientific enlightenment of the hunk of moderately advanced primate meat you claim possesses a soul.”
Yeah…doesn’t quite work…
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.
If nothing is sacred, according to PZ, then I’m hoping he can send me all his original notes and data from all of his scientific studies. We’re getting a little low on Charmin around here.
Jeff,
I agree that we should not be issuing death threats at all, or any other act of violence, but pray for his soul.
It’s difficult to think of Mr. PZ Myers in any which way but evil, but he also was made in the image of Christ.
Easier said than done.
HAIL
THE
NAIL
“and the Word was made Flesh”
Memento Myers
Nailed the Host,
Father, Son and
Holy Ghost
Where flesh – by a word
From Nero was toast –
Myer’s, the Word
Nailed Flesh, his boast.
But the Word is made Flesh
At Mass daily doth dwell –
So nail Myers nail…
Till it freezes in Hell!
A few things:
1) Where is the outrage about his Koran desecration? I rather expected some serious outcries related to that, especially in Minnesota.
2) No scientific test can demonstrate that the words on a page are actually from Hamlet, and not just meaningless ink blots. Yet Hamlet it remains. “Yet it moves.”
3) The university’s poor response is atrocious.
4) Myers’ position is irrational, and a first year philosophy student can easily demonstrate it as false. The level of stupidity involved here is mind numbing.
5) “Today, I won’t scrub my hands with detergents before an operation. Iodine prep? The Devil’s Ink, I calls it!” Hilarious.
“The scientific method is itself a being of reason and not provable by the scientific method”
What exactly isn’t provable? That we’re not all brains in jars being fead false information or something?
Also how are theology or philosophy science? I’m not doubting that they’re valid avenues of intellecual study… just wondering how you’re defining “science”.
ps yeah Myers ia a bit of a jerk
I. The scientific method depends on logic.
II. Logic can not be proven by the scientific method.
III. Therefore the scientific method can not be proven by the scientific method.
Philosophy and theology are sciences, but of a different sort than physics or biology. Physics and biology are empirical sciences, because the primary tools involve use of sense perception. These can be called the “hard sciences.”
Philosophy and theology (“soft sciences”) use general tools available to everyone (the human mind, as opposed to the electron microscope). The questions considered are not specific questions about the physical world (the chemical process in test tube X), but general questions often of the metaphysical world (the meaning of life).
The hard sciences (which are usually just called Science in today’s lingo) are incapable of dealing with issues beyond the test tube. What is the MEANING of something? What experiment can prove the words on a page are Hamlet, and not just random letters?
Philosophy and theology gave birth to the scientific method because a sound reasonable process was needed for examining the physical world. Psychology is often called the illegitimate child of philosophy because it uses philosophical models in a practical and scientific way.
And that is pretty much a whirlwind summary of the history of human thought. Hope that answers your question 🙂
What can prove logic then? Itself? And… what are the consequences of the scientific method not being able to prove itself?
Sorry if these are annoying questions!
I think a lot, regarding stuff like “meaning of hamlet” might hinge on whether or not we can ever describe sentience scientifically.
So tell me, when is Myers going to vandalize the Kaaba in Mecca? I’m sure he’ll get around to it, seeing as he’s such a brave opponent of superstition and all that. . .
so much thought, such a lack of reality.
Okay, thanks.
“Yes, they do have faith 🙂 Faith that reason and logic actually exist, function, and are reliable.”
I get that. But it seems to me that the alternatives – ie that reason and logic don’t function – are kind of trivialities. I mean there’s no evidence, no reason to believe them, or dwell on them. We have to formally note the possibility, for sure. But then… I’m inclined to kind of shrug and move on.
Reason and logic seem to work fine so far; “seeming” isn’t the same thing as “absolutely do” but when you can’t know what’s absolutely right it starts to become rather abstract and uninteresting.
Or to put it another way we might be brains in jars but of what use is that possibility?
So it’s faith, yeah, but I don’t see it as the same kind (or same extent?) of faith as is used in religion.
So if reason is something inside our heads… at least *seems* realiable and we might as well assume so until given reason to doubt it. If it is from an external source… well I’m open to the idea, although I’m skeptical that source would be anything remotely like a personal god.
Stoo,
If we might as well assume that reason and logic exist until we are given reason to doubt it, then could not the same be said about God? And if the possibilities of their non-existence are trivialities, then we arrive at Pascal’s Wager.
As for logic and reason coming from a personal God… they need not. But it would be a great big cosmic *something*, which means atheists are wrong.
If you’d like to continue the discussion via email, let me know, as we’re approaching a point when rather long responses are required.
I’m rather astounded that someone who suggests that a first-year philosophy student can dismantle PZ Myers’ position cannot discuss the basics of the philosophy of science without resorting to false premises (and thus completely unsound logic).
Science can never prove anything to the same degree that logic can. That is due to the fact that logic is entirely definitional (we humans made up the definitions used) while science seeks knowledge of the natural world (and for all we know, we are all just brains in vats).
Logic “exists” in exactly the same way that language exists: all speakers of a particular language agree upon the meanings of words and a set of rules by which those meanings are modified and linked together. It’s entirely man-made, there is no “source” for it apart from humans. And it’s nothing more than a tool, like science is nothing more than a tool.
Science rests upon the assumptions that there exists an objective reality and that we can measure it (and thus learn about it). That we can never “prove” the assumptions true is meaningless, as science never proves anything with 100% certainty. So long as they aren’t falsified, however, then it looks like we’re on the right track.
To call that “faith” is to insult the faithful. There’s no more faith in the assumption that the world exists than there is in anyone’s assumption that their furniture hasn’t been re-arranged while they were sleeping (and so there’s no need to turn on a light to get to the bathroom at 3 AM). If you really wish to belittle your own faith, then by all means compare it to science’s tenative, falsifiable conclusions and willingness to drop impracticle ideas.
For the love of all that is crunchy, not THE MICROSCOPE!
I think you’ve confused the words ‘irreverent’ and ‘irrelevant.’
Somewhere, the shades of Van Leeuwenhoek and Hooke are very offended that you desecrated a microscope. I call all faithful and true defenders of microscopy to join me in viewing microbes for an hour this coming Monday in reparation for this outrage, followed by an hour of lens cleaning and polishing.
“1) Where is the outrage about his Koran desecration? I rather expected some serious outcries related to that, especially in Minnesota.”
Yes, I know. It’s a shame Muslims won’t cooperate and do your dirty work for you.
“2) No scientific test can demonstrate that the words on a page are actually from Hamlet, and not just meaningless ink blots. Yet Hamlet it remains. “Yet it moves.””
Funny, I think Hamlet is a good work of theatre regardless of whether or not the story is actually is true. Do you disagree? And more importantly, can you find a “scientist” who claims that all works of fiction are worthless?
“3) The university’s poor response is atrocious.”
Yeah, that First Amendment is a real bitch, isn’t it?
“4) Myers’ position is irrational, and a first year philosophy student can easily demonstrate it as false. The level of stupidity involved here is mind numbing.”
Translation: I could totally beat you up. I mean, if I wanted to. Yeah. Seriously. I totally could. If I was that kind of guy. Which I’m not, lucky for you. But if I was, you’d be screwed.
Totally persuasive.
“5) “Today, I won’t scrub my hands with detergents before an operation. Iodine prep? The Devil’s Ink, I calls it!” Hilarious.”
Methinks the joke’s on you.
Hahahahahhah!
This is so astonishingly dumb.
A microscope is not remotely sacred. Not even to P.Z. Meyers. It hasn’t been “consecrated” by some high-priest-in-a-robe scientist. It’s just a device for looking at things smaller than the human eye can see.
If you think PZ is going to offended by this in some way, you are quite deluded. He might be amused, mildly.
How can you desecrate a microscope? It’s not “sanctified” by anything or anything. At the most, it could be said that damaging a microscope is a pity, and a waste of a perfectly good microscope.
However, you fail to see the humour: I would regard “desecrating” a cracker (sorry, host) as EXACTLY the same: because a “sanctified” “consecrated” host is, in fact, exactly the same as a normal, non-sanctified piece of bread; except it’s had some guy in a dress/robe/suit wave his hands over it an mutter something, possibly in latin, because, as we all know, god speaks latin by choice.
You CHOOSE to believe that your cracker is in some way sacred: with greatest respect, that’s your problem, and if you can’t put up with some people thinking that is just a little bit silly, then you need to relax. We don’t have to respect that belief any more than you regularly don’t respect the hindu belief of the sacredness of the cow – you slaughter and eat beef every week. You even probably eat shellfish, as advised against by your very own Bible.
Throwing holy water on a microscope wouldn’t offend anyone – the water isn’t holy, it’s just water. YOU might be offended at what you see as waste of “sacred” holy water, but not everyone has to subscribe to your bizarre myths and rituals, and not everybody does. Get over it.
Oh, and if I’m not mistaken, I’m pretty sure PZ performed his little parlour trick on his own time – nothing to do with his university job. And, don’t forget it was in deliberate response to the utterly hysterical behaviour of a large number of catholics towards a kid at university who took, and then returned, a host from a service. PZ didn’t just wake up one day and decide to go out and stick pins in crackers – he’s not crackers!! He was making a deliberate point about the blatant persecution of this university kid, in an attempt to show up the catholic church’s own ludicrousness. I think, judging by responses such as yours (“desecrating” a microscope, hahahahahah!) he has succeeded.
PZ is fully allowed to question catholic beliefs and practices as a personal hobby. Did catholic priests abusing children do it on God’s time, or on their time off?
LCB:
If we might as well assume that reason and logic exist until we are given reason to doubt it, then could not the same be said about God?
Well, not really, as we are given literally hundreds of millions of reasons to doubt God’s existence: the general whole not-actually-answering-prayers-ever thing, for example.
Wait sorry I should probably answer this bit:
“If we might as well assume that reason and logic exist until we are given reason to doubt it, then could not the same be said about God? “
I don’t follow that. I have reasons to assume reason and logic exist – they seem to work, a universe seems to be there, and our logic has done a really good job of providing predictive descriptions.
But god… what reason do I have to assume he’s there? Apart from maybe a very vaguely defined “first cause”.
Anyway tho feel free to email me to continue this, I don’t want to clog up the Curt Jester’s post unduly.
Actually, I’ve decided that I am offended by this post. I’m offended that Miller couldn’t have taken more time with Photoshop. I can’t see the nail or any drops of holy water. “The trash” looks like out-of-focus leaf litter, and it’s obvious that the microscope and banana peel aren’t lit by the same light source, fercryinoutloud.
Fail.
PZ doesn’t worship a microscope or believe it is a sacred object. Catholics believe that a spell cast by a priest turns a wafer into Jesus Christ. They then worship these wafers and believe them to have special powers.
Catholics also see fit to issue death threats, assault, and even kill if there is a perceived insult to the host.
Nobody will harm or threaten harm if you destroyed a microscope.
Big difference.
Futhermore if you’d look into the comments, you’ll find quite a few death threats. One man even cost his wife her job at 1-800 Flowers when he used her work email for his threat.
Funny how PZ hasn’t gotten any complaints or threats over the Koran descration.
The point is is that the host isn’t worth a single human life. Nor is it worth assaulting or threatening a person over. It’s a piece of bread FFS!!
I believe that if you value a bread wafer over a human life, then you a depraved human being.
BTW modern science contains collective knowledge from many different people living in many different cultures. Not all of them were Christians or even Europeans.
Eeek sorry, I thought I posted with my email but it seems to have disappeared.
LCB if you’re still reading you can find me at pearofdespair at hotmail dot com.
Now I see what Jeff meant in his recent post about how some people obviously didn’t understand the satirical nature of his microscope desecration idea!For satire to be any good, it has to be witty. This had about as much wit as a Reader’s Digest joke.
Comments are closed.