Comments by Steve Zara

1001. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209317 by Steve Zara on July 12, 2008 at 2:57 am

Comment #209309 by Mitchell Gilks

All I am proposing is a society in which we are all as civilized as possible. I may be wrong, but I get the impression that Styrer- and Dr Doctor are suggesting that we need not give a damn about people's feelings if they are Catholic because of what Catholicism does to the world. I can understand that point of view, but it just isn't going to work if we want to live reasonably peaceful lives. If we endorse such an approach, then we are in no position to condemn those who are rude and and harass us. The same rules have to apply to all, as one can't justify such behaviour with "I am on the right side of things", because that is begging the question - it assumes that we have already won the argument.

This isn't about who is right. It is about how people should relate to each other in civilized society, I think.

1002. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209303 by Steve Zara on July 12, 2008 at 2:37 am

Comment #209296 by Mitchell Gilks

Yes, indeed. It still remains a prattish thing to have done even if subsequently, the person who did it gets nasty threats from the bridesmaids. And, it isn't double standards to point that out. One can't retrospectively justify prattishness on that basis.

1003. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209277 by Steve Zara on July 12, 2008 at 2:01 am

I believe I explained it in the post.

Not that I could see.

The problem is they reached out of this ghetto into the real world.

In what way?

EDIT:
If I understand your argument, it is wrong (double standards) for some of us to say that what Cook did was a bit silly, because after he did it, some people wildly over-reacted in a way which we condemn?

I just don't seem to be getting what you are actually arguing against, or where "double standards" comes in. Sorry, but I'd like to clear this up, as if I have been at fault, I'd like to know why.

1004. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209271 by Steve Zara on July 12, 2008 at 1:54 am

It has one very useful purpose. It illustrates where the burden of proof lies.

How?

They are failing to respect the point of view that it is just a cracker

No, that isn't true at all. They had the point of view that it is just a cracker imposed on them by someone who had agreed to take part in their rituals.

If someone playing soccer started to run while carrying the ball, would you say that those who complained "were failing to respect the view that rubgy is a better game"?

As for how it moves us on, it provides us and them an opportunity to observe where the lines are drawn, how much they can or cannot get away with now we are not in 1624

I want people to be able to perform silly rituals if they feel the need. Saying that they should not sounds a bit totalitarian to me.

Are you really saying that people should not be able to get away with performing such rituals unharassed?

1005. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209254 by Steve Zara on July 12, 2008 at 1:25 am

Comment #209242 by Dr Doctor

It's just a cracker. The point for me is how you deal with people who think it is more. One can't just wish such beliefs away. We have to deal with society as it is (even while we may be trying to make it better). Part of that society consists of basically decent people who believe that a cracker is more than just a cracker. Let them play games with crackers, I say. If you approve of someone ruining their game, then you can't complain if someone ruins yours, whatever it is.

1006. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209252 by Steve Zara on July 12, 2008 at 1:19 am

I am sorry - I am probably not doing a good job of explaining my position.

What I am trying to understand is what the point of PZ's comments along the lines of "it's just a cracker". I am not sure how it moves discussion on, or justifies anything one way or another. Those who believe it is more than a cracker aren't going to be persuaded by it. Those who know it is only a cracker don't need to be told. It can't be used as an argument that some Catholics should not be offended, as it isn't an argument - it is an assertion.

This is not to criticise PZ. I am just trying to understand why such comments were made. I may be being dense, or trying to over-analyze this.

EDIT: I believe mordacious1 has probably just answered this.

1007. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209237 by Steve Zara on July 12, 2008 at 12:55 am

Comment #209235 by Dr Doctor

Indeed. Which is why saying "it's just a cracker" isn't going to move the argument on.

1008. Susskind Quashes Hawking in Quarrel Over Quantum Quandary

Comment #209228 by Steve Zara on July 12, 2008 at 12:06 am

Comment #208824 by Vendetta

This matter of what happens at event horizons is such a common question, I wrote a summary of it:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/145792.html

To deal with your main point, black holes are dark partly because the gravity red-shifts the light from objects falling in to the point where it can't be seen.

1009. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209226 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 11:57 pm

Comment #209150 by Steven Mading

My point is that it isn't going to work just to declare yourself right.

1010. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209132 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Comment #209126 by Radesq

However, in what manner do you wish we would argue the point differently; given that it is in fact just a cracker?

I don't think we need to do that much now. This controversy will have exposed the silliness of this theological position. I think the publicity over this will work wonders.

What matters now is support for PZ, and his freedom to post his views on his blog.

Comment #209128 by decius
Tom Lehrer is one of the greats. Surely you have heard of the element song?

1011. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209125 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Comment #209109 by decius

I haven't been a Catholic for close to 25 years, but I still feel wonderfully naughty listening to "The Vatican Rag"

1012. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209122 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Comment #209096 by mixmastergaz

I think there is an interesting common thread with other topics that have been posted on this site.

My feeling is that there is some question-begging going on.

In the recent post about Richard Dawkins' discussion with John Lennox, Richard assumed that by letting Lennox put forward his views, that would "give him enough rope". For a rational audience, that was justified. But (as Richard later conceded) that would not have applied to the part of the audience that was supportive of Lennox's views.

I think something similar applies to Myers' posts. If he says "it is just a cracker", that is begging the question. Of course it is just a cracker to those who realise it is just a cracker. For those people, the offense taken by Catholics is incomprehensible. On the other hand, there are many people for whom is is NOT "just a cracker", so to assume that no offense should be taken is to assume that the argument has already been won.

It can be difficult as rationalists to realise that our argument has to be fought for, and not simply pointed out. It isn't obvious to many. And until that battle has been won, we can't assume that what we say is obvious, and clearly must be the case.

Until then, we have to realise that we need to understand that theists argue from their own position, with their own rules. If we are to win arguments, we have to deal with this.

(Incidentally, Brian English has written an excellent article related to this on his blog).

1013. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #209098 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 3:13 pm

fizhburn, I believe most deductivo-theists will assert that usage of the God connective # is tautological.

Look, Brian, I can read most of MPhil's stuff, and understand some of the words. I know when people are just stringing words together to be clever...

I think...

1014. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #209090 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Comment #209071 by decius

Thinking of it, we should ask txpiper, he could probably outsmart Euclid, too.

Him and his sockpuppet, God - heck, together they could probably even outsmart Stephen Fry.

1015. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #209060 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Comment #209050 by decius

I have seen that before. Wonderful, isn't it?

It's like one of those trick mathematical proofs that 1 = 2. It takes time to find the division by zero ("let's instead use the inner circumference").

1016. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #209041 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Comment #209038 by Brian English

Are we drifting towards something Godelian here? I think we need to be told!

1017. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #209039 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Comment #209010 by Scot Rafkin

My apologies, Steve, for not reading your statement more clearly.

It was entirely my fault for not being clear.

1018. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209034 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Comment #209025 by Brian English

I am now confused. I can't think of anyone involved in this whole business who has behaved with dignity.

It is escalating into ever-increasing craziness.

There may be one good thing that comes out of this - it opens up the idea of transubstantiation for discussion, and reveals how silly it is. If, when this settles, that is the result, then something positive will have been achieved.

1019. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209021 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 2:05 pm

I am confused. Additional security for the community that has been threatening others?

Are they insane?

I am this close to turning into Styrer-.

1020. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #208996 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Although I have noticed my typing is so bad lately that I am starting to look like wooter when I hit "submit". I am terrified.

No, Al. There is not the slightest danger of that, ever. Not even if you typed with your feet.

1021. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208990 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Comment #208945 by Dr Doctor

You have it completely wrong. This is not a matter of yielding to anyone, certainly not belligerent demands. I am not going to defend religion, and I think the response to what Cook did has been outrageous and shameful.

The message I am trying to put across is very simple. If people want to play silly games with bread, then its rude to pretend to want to play too and then break the rules. It's like saying you want to play soccer, and then to start running while holding the ball. It's nastier if you know that the games they are playing have some emotional significance.

You seem to be saying that unless we say that everything that Cook did was totally above board and reasonable, that unless we actually praise what he did, then we are somehow pandering to the religious nutters.

No. I think quite the opposite. If we forced into throwing away our belief that we should try and act politely to people who are engaged in fundamentally harmless activities because of some nutters, then we are giving in.

I will (and have) condemn Catholicism strongly for what it preaches regarding gay rights, birth control, contraception. I will call it irrational nonsense. But if a few people want to pretend that a bit of bread is God in a meeting, let them. There is plenty of nuttier and more harmful stuff going on in the world.

If we aren't going to say that what Cook did was crass, how are we going to react if some priest in civilian clothing came into a buffet reception for Richard Dawkins, pinched a sandwich and ran out yelling "I blessed it - so there!"?

I mean, that would be terrible, wouldn't it?

1022. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #208979 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Sorry - I did not explain that well.

What I meant is that we can make an average person who might, because they are ignorant of science, be a creationist, embarassed about it by pointing at people like txpiper.

I don't think the average person will consider claims of people to be superior to Einstein to be reasonable.

1023. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208890 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 10:54 am

Comment #208812 by decius

Thanks for this post.

1024. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #208820 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 9:29 am

Comment #208806 by Quine

It has been quite amazing to watch.

1025. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208790 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 8:55 am

Can I therefore suggest that people write a letter as well as an e-mail? I think PZ is worth the price of a stamp, after all!

That is an excellent idea.

1026. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #208766 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 8:20 am

I think there may be a useful strategy against creationism, which is to show the kind of minds that supposedly educated creationists must have. They must be a combination of conspiracy theorist and egomaniac - "the whole scientific world is wrong about reality - they have all been fooled, and I know better". I think most people are decent, and will find this worldview repulsive. I mean, whatever most people know about science (which typically isn't very much), they will find the idea that some relatively ordinary bloke considers himself better than Einstein deeply worrying. I think there is a chance we can make people ashamed to be creationists. Einstein is a good scientist to mention, as he is thought of affectionately in the public consciousness - a fluffy and eccentric wild-haired scientist who changed our view of the universe (or in most people's thoughts, did clever stuff with atoms and space).

I think txpiper, with his confession, has done us a favour.

1027. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208722 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 7:19 am

Comment #208717 by Styrer- on July 11, 2008 at 7:14 am

For I have learned
To look on nature, not as in the hour
Of thoughtless youth; but hearing oftentimes
The still, sad music of humanity,
Nor harsh nor grating, though of ample power
To chasten and subdue.

Beautiful

But sometimes you must simply ignore it and kick ass!

Just watch out where you are kicking :)

1028. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208702 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 6:53 am

Fuck it. Why do I expect e-people to be any more comprehensible than ones standing in front of me.

Exactly!

Why people claim to know the mind of God when we can't know each others minds - Hell, we can't even know our own, is beyond me!

1029. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208693 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 6:43 am

Comment #208689 by Styrer-

I think there is a major and vital cause here.

What I am saying should not be engaged with are your comments when you insult fellow posters who are basically on the same side as you. Clod was putting his case in a civilized and polite way. He was faced with abuse. There are people who actually deserve such rants...

That is all.

Honest best wishes

Steve

1030. Religious bigotry upheld in court

Comment #208684 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 6:28 am

Bear in mind that the Tribunal has not said that she was completely justified in her stance. The reason she won was that her objections were not dealt with by fair procedures.

Fair point.

1031. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208681 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 6:24 am

Comment #208658 by clodhopper

Styrer isn't worth engaging with. Honestly.

He seems to think anyone who doesn't follow his full-on foul-mouthed view is some kind of traitor to "the cause". Personally, I think ire is better focussed at idiots like Donohue than people who are generally supportive, but don't quite think like yourself.

1032. Religious bigotry upheld in court

Comment #208645 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 5:43 am

Comment #208637 by hungarianelephant

I think you make a good point about terms being changed. However, I feel very unhappy about this.

Suppose a white person had taken on the role of registrar assuming she would only be dealing with white couples, and then a racist law was changed...

1033. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #208544 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 3:01 am

Comment #208540 by Peacebeuponme

Good points. Deism leaves science alone.

Also, I did indeed mean to imply that deism is problematic in its own right. The idea of a supernatural creator is just not sensible, whether or not he interferes.

1034. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208541 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 2:59 am

Comment #208538 by Roland_F

But good that the mailbox of the University president had to shut down based on overload.

Providing it is due to appropriate e-mails, and not some twits attacking the server. However, I am sure it is a welcome sign of support for PZ.

1035. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #208533 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 2:36 am

Comment #208526 by fides_et_ratio

I find it difficult to understand how Richard Dawkins, Susan Blackmore and others are ok with Deism, Susan even labels it the scientist's faith, yet can't comprehend that a creator could influence nature in a way they don't understand.

I'd put it the other way.

Because the whole concept of the supernatural is incoherent, I find it a bit odd to see such support for deism.

I think it is a small jump from deism to theism, which is why I think deism is problematic.

1036. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208501 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 1:48 am

Comment #208497 by irate_atheist

I have the greatest respect for your opinions.

You are right. I have no objection to things like people campaigning loudly in the street, what this guy did was lift-farting. There are better ways.

1037. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208490 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 1:38 am

That deliberately not eating a communion wafer is so much further up the scale that you will, without thought nor hint of preview rush to support PZ Myers when he comes under threat but spend your time beating around several bushes and an ornamental pond when it comes to a student being threatened with physical violence?

I just don't understand this. Perhaps it was because I assumed that threats of physical violence were so clearly dreadful it made little sense to emphasise that. Yes, they are awful and totally unacceptable. But that does not mean I have to support what the guy did. I support his right not to be threatened.

I don't agree with some of what PZ Myers writes, and sometimes I say so. But I support his right not to be threatened too.

Nothing but consistency... as I hope you can see.

I am criticising the double standards on display.

Before assuming double standards are on display, it is worth asking someone what they mean.

1038. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #208486 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 1:31 am

Comment #208480 by Brian English

Your strategy seems to me to be the only one that has any real effect (as I discuss on my "blog")

I'm just going through a stage where I find arguing with people who don't hold my beliefs as though they did seems wasteful.

Yes, I know the feeling, although experiencing the views of txpiper has made me realised I still have the ability to be seriously astonished.

1039. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #208476 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 1:21 am

Comment #208474 by Brian English

You have shown more wisdom about this than me, so I'll go for your strategy from now on.

I have achieved what I wanted with my strategy - to reveal the frightening mindset of supposedly educated creationists.

1040. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208472 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 1:17 am

Comment #208468 by Dr Doctor

Whereas not eating a cracker, instead taking it home with you is sufficient excuse to be subject to massive harassment?

Of course it isn't! Can you quote anyone here saying it was?

The amount of distortion going on here baffles me.

Look, it is like this.

Supposing someone walked into a packed lift and deliberately farted. And as a result got death threats.

The death threats are clearly awful. But does that make lift-farting a wonderful and praiseworthy thing? Don't people have a right not to be assailed by foul odours, irrespective of the death threats that were issued by some maniacs?

Can't people just be left alone?

1041. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208464 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 12:58 am

Comment #208456 by hopeful

I think what this is now about is: should a highly respected professor be subject to massive harassment because of what he writes on a blog? PZ Myers was not threatening anyone. He was simply ridiculing people. I think right now this really is about free speech. I think it is a wider issue than just religion.

1042. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208446 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 12:30 am

Comment #208438 by Styrer-

So why you question?

I have explained, but you will note that the emphasis on what was posted was on writing letters. Indeed, that is stressed on PZ's site too. If I was a university administrator, I would consider a stack of letters far more effective than 10,000 e-mails. Indeed, it may even be possible e-mails from people not within the USA may be considered a nuisance rather than effective. I didn't know what was appropriate, and so I asked. It seemed only good manners.

1043. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208434 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 12:12 am

I happened to see this on the Catholic League website

http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459

"The Myers blog can be accessed from the university's website. The university has a policy statement on this issue which says that the 'Contents of all electronic pages must be consistent with University of Minnesota policies, local, state and federal laws.' One of the school's policies, 'Code of Conduct,' says that 'When dealing with others,' faculty et al. must be 'respectful, fair and civil.'

This is quite insane.

Of course the Myers blog can be accessed from the university's website. That is the way the internet works. His blog isn't badged as part of the university.

(I can remember when an institution where I worked in the early 90s attempted a "no links to the outside world on your pages, it will make us look bad" policy)

1044. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #208425 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 11:59 pm

Comment #208423 by Brian English

I think we are onto something a bit different and more interesting here. This isn't someone who says "science is wrong" - this is someone who says "science is an appropriate way of looking at the world, and I am better at it than Einstein".

I was kind of hoping I could get through on the basis of religious beliefs. After all, Christianity is supposed to preach humility, and txpiper is clearly anything but humble.

I have been trying for some time to get a creationist to admit their astonishing arrogance, so I could point out the inconsistency.

1045. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208421 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 11:55 pm

I cannot believe that you really needed to ask such a question.

I have worked and lectured at a university. It is possible that correspondence from outside the area served by the university would be ignored. It may even seem like interference.

On the 'Goddamned Cracker' thread, you were one of the first to express anxiety about the way we all were or were not showing courteous, civilized behaviour towards those very fucking Catholic Cult members who have, because of a fucking biscuit, tried to rip a young man's life to fucking pieces.

No. All I said was that what Cook did was rude. I in no way made any excuses for the apalling over-reactions.

I believe in appropriate freedoms. Those freedoms should be for everyone, not just the people we like and agree with.

1046. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #208415 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 11:46 pm

txpiper-

So to answer your question, I value my opinion on things like this above those of the gentlemen and crowds you list because, if they believe that things like this are really possible, it's apparent that they never really thought about it. And I have.

At last. We have the truth.

Txpiper has thought about things in a way that Einstein never did, that Dawkins never has, that Watson and Crick didn't. He has thought about things in a way that Stephen Hawking never has.

So, you truly rank yourself as one of the greatest geniuses in the history of humanity.

Now come on, be honest. Do you really think that is likely? What is more likely - that all those people are wrong, or that you are?

1047. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208408 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 11:39 pm

Comment #208405 by Dr Doctor

You seem to have a strange idea of what is hypocritical.

I don't like to see people bullied. The fellow messing about with the wafer was being unecessarily rude and insulting in my view. And now, PZ is being attacked.

I dislike simplistic views, such as that when there is a disagreement like this only one side must be right, and one side wrong.

What matters is allowing people to get on in a peaceful and civilized way. To me that means allowing people to mess about with bread without being insulted the way Cook did, and also it means allowing the awesome Myers to continue to post unharassed.

Not wanting to drag the argument onto here but firstly I displayed a general garment that you seem to think is cut to fit.

Indeed. I saved you the bother of having to tailor the garment.

1048. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208402 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 11:26 pm

Comment #208396 by Dr Doctor

Very strange that some who were commenting on the previous thread showing irrational reverence for Catholics, their customs and their crackers (and indeed, even making the same facile point that was made to Prof. Myers) and now rushing to PZ's rescue.

How is it strange?

I will admit I am not always comfortable with some things that PZ Myers says, but I will strongly defend his right to say them. Myers not only posts with great intelligence and wit, he is also a superb educator. It would be a very bad day for rationalism if Myers was to suffer in his career because of this post.

I think there is consistency in defending the rights of some weird people not to have their holy bread messed about with and defending the right of Myers to post on Pharyngula while being at the University of Minnesota. It is about allowing people to be left alone in a civilized society.

1049. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208380 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 10:57 pm

E-mail sent.

1050. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208077 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Comment #208060 by Richard Dawkins

Would contributions from those of us who aren't in the USA help?