Crackers again...

Reading Myers' blog again, to see if there were any updates. He's had to close at least two posts for commenting because there was too much! And these are thousands of comments!


I think the reason it really bothered me is ithat it was unfounded on the truth. Of course, truth is always a relative term... Myers took it out of context and yes, people wanting to kill a kid for taking the communion wafer are over the line. Yes, those are irrational Catholics. But that doesn't mean that Catholics are irrational, and I suppose that assumption would lead to the second assumption I noted earlier this week, that Myers behaves as though, because he has science on his side, he is reasonable and right and just. However, it doesn't work like that. Life is not a logic equation.

I read a book called Do you think what you think you think?. The whole premise is just to see if your idea of God is logical. It's not trying to reform you or anything, there's no religion-bashing, it's just to get you to think about it. It also has some good tips on logic, and at one point they show that in electoral campaigns, politicians say something like, "Vote for me if you want a better country", which, in our strange human decoding, translates into, "if I don't vote for him it means I don't want a better country". Pretty useful for influencing the masses, but annoying to anyone else who stops to think. Smiling waving politician at the podium isn't saying "if and only if you vote for me do you want a better country", which means that you can want a better country and vote for someone who will do that for you.


Then there are those who are so disgusted with what they see as a phoney suit trying to honey up some votes, and completely disregard everything. That would be the scientist, anti-religion Myers. Just reading some of the comments on this thread, the short-sightedness of some similar types is evidenced (note that short-sightedness goes with a lack of ability to put into context, a general apathy, or a strong desire to be 'insulted' and scientifically (or technically) prove their rightness)


Sometimes I saw replies to comments that quoted part or all of a sentence and proceeded to prove how they are right or the original commenter is wrong - note that one does not necessecarily invoke the other. However, if they stopped being so excited about finding someone wrong, they'd find that the person they are ridiculing has the same point as them. Impatience... sigh. (And yes, I am impatient too.)

To Myers: yes, it is only a cracker. Many people know that, and many Catholic people know that, at a certain point, yes, it is just a piece of bread. Part of religion is belief and importance of values. I wouldn't harken it to make-believe, because it is a couple levels above that. It's like a way to live your life, to find peace, to guide your choices. And if I'm not mistaken, I'm Catholic and I'm not ramming it down anyone's throat. Nevertheless, the Eucharist has a certain importance in the lives of those who follow God in this way, and it does have importance as that role. It's not like you can ignore stock market speculation and buy stocks at cheaper than they are listed - just the fact that it is thought to have importance give it importance - and that's a real thing, influencing the real world.


As far as awakening Catholics to the fact that it is only just a cracker, I think Myers may have just wanted to kind of look like that was what he was trying to do so he'd have some recourse - that with reason on his side he would save the poor backwards peasants.

Crackers - My letter

Dear Mr. Bruininks,


I have read Paul Zachary Myers’ two blog entries concerning the incident with Webster Cook and the Eucharist. I am concerned for Mr. Myers and would like you to impress upon him the approach of rational action.


While I agree with Mr. Myers (that many overreacted to the original actions of Webster Cook), the professor was extreme in his own reaction. It was not necessary to refer to the Eucharist degradingly as a cracker throughout his posts, regardless of his belief or lack thereof of the Eucharist as the body of Christ – a sacred item. Especially because of said sacred nature, Myers’ eagerness to defile other ‘crackers’ was unjustified.


I am concerned that a professor would—intentionally or by a lapse in thought—be the cause of such an uproar. The Eucharist is central to Catholicism, and, indeed, sacred to those of faith. The fact that it is, physically, only a cracker in insignificant compared to it’s overwhelming religious value. If a university professor cannot understand the importance of context, I am concerned that his actions and teaching in the future will have further unfavorable effects. Also, as Bill Donahue stated, Myers’ blog, accessible from the university’s web site, does not adhere to the university’s code of conduct. Such a code is adopted nearly universally in professional places of work across North America and Myers should be aware of the standard he must uphold as a professional—even in his spare time.


My intention in writing this letter is not to suppress personal opinion, nor is it to exact vengeful punishment for the wrongs done to the religion concerned. I would like to express to Mr. Myers the benefit of reason and moderation as a practical approach, which has the advantage of the greatest support every time. To respond to extremism with more extremism is in bad taste, especially when from the scientific and educational communities.


Sincerely,

(my name)

Fight fire with fire?

A friend showed me this post today (click here for the background story).

Some kid smuggled the Eucharist out of Mass to show his friend, apparently, and Catholics worldwide became angry. This kid has even recieved death threats! They view the act as hostage and sacrilege.

Now, the writer of the blog I linked you to above constantly referred to it as a cracker. Not just once, to emphasize what it was physically, or twice, even, to prove a point, but every time he talked about it. And I am not saying that someone who has no faith in the specific religion has to believe that it truly is the body of Christ, I'm not saying he should think holy thoughts about it, but... don't be stupid.

The Eucharist is very holy for Catholics; once it has been blessed by the priest it becomes the body of Christ. I understand that death threats to this boy might have been extreme, but the author was also extreme in his blatant baiting. If you compare any holy item of any religion to everyday objects, ridiculing them, you shouldn't be the least bit surprised when people become offended.

And it's not the same as degrading people for their actions or criticising the lack of proof for their faith, this is one of the most central parts of Catholocism. It's like calling a winning sports star an airheaded-muscler and proving how worthless and wasteful sports are. Whether you believe that sports are important and merit the huge amounts of money thrown around for it is not relevant; sports is what that person does.

I don't care if you are Catholic or pagan or Muslim or agnostic, I'm not going to try to dissuade you from what makes your life work for you, I will not needlessly insult the way you live.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I was raised a Catholic. I now follow more the spiritual path than the religious one)

Patterns

Patterns! For many, they're not so hard to spot. Sometimes, we stumble upon them by accident. Many people say that we form patterns and connections where there are none (thank the left brain* for that). Seriously, when they say we're born storytellers, they're not kidding. Actually, it's more like hardwired in the brain.

*Awesome conversation, by the way. A bit of variance on the topic but all of it very interesting.

I'm not exactly sure why we do it, make stories and conceive patterns. Some kind of survival instinct, I would imagine. I was about to say that I can't see how it would have any use, but I suppose that the story is where humans started making up for their lack of animal toughness (fur to keep warm, claws to protect). If we could recognize patterns, we could recreate them to gain something.


Even pre-historic human hunters used prairie fires to direct prey, or, in Alberta, directed buffalo off cliffs to reap the rewards(see here). This seems atypical from the 'hunter' niche in the animal kingdom: predator chases prey, and in some cases (such as the venus fly trap), predator waits for prey, sometimes with the help of illusion (see angler fish). However, humans use outside tools and factors, and even when we could try to lessen the importance of that claim with symbiosis, humans consistently create new ideas and form new relations. But I digress.


Actually, when I was browsing a new-age store a few months ago I started reading a book (that was explaining what? success, time, perspective?) and it illustrated the exact opposite of my current point. That is, that when events are separated by a gulf of time or location large enough, we don't see any connection between events: they become "coincidences". Obviously, though, they are still significant enough not to be dismissed as an everyday event, and, ultimately, forgotten, but the cause was not seen to be the same, and therefore, we relegate these events to the 'things that must not be related because I cannot see how they are related' part of our memories.


It was explained like this: Imagine a giant invisible hand in the sky holding a bunch of sticks. Then the hand releases it's hold and the sticks begin to fall, but they do not all fall at the same place or the same time. Now you, a human on Earth, sees a stick. When you travel to another continent years later, you see another stick, maybe thinking to yourself, that looks familiar. Throughout your life you may see more of these sticks, but you cannot see the giant hand in the sky causing these sticks to scatter throughout the world over such a long period of time. You cannot even conceive of it, that all these sticks are of one source.

If you want to, bear with me here while we go to yet another (possibly connected) topic.

This is about people with mental illness. Both someone I know who is affected by mental illness and a source about it (if only I bookmarked more places I visit!) made it known to me that, for some with mental illness, time seems to be a lot more fluid. It can slip by quickly, or the past may be experienced after the present. I'm not sure if this is a symptom of the brain malfunctioning, causing hallucinations, or maybe... they are being freed from their human perspective sometimes.

After all, the only reason we say that time is forward-moving only is that is the only way we experience it. And if those who experience it otherwise are crazy, it is very easy to discard their point of view. But then, some scientists and philosophers with shiny new ideas were rejected too! And it was usually heresy (any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.)

...Is it truly an evil thing to be heretic, or is this kind of law or rule simply a manifestation of the fear induced by new ideas and perspectives?

But maybe that's a discussion for another day.