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)

Bad Memory

Because of what happened that I highlighted in yesterday's post, the usual TGIF post got pushed out of the schedule. Actually, I wrote a letter that I will be sending to the university, as per Myers' request, however it is not in support of him. Unfortunately, I left it at my place of work and I will have to send a good copy on Monday. I suppose that it only would have been sent on Monday anyways since the post doesn't move on the weekends.

Just because science is usually right doesn't make everyone who uses it right in everything they do.

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)

What are you telling your water?

With all this rain in our usually dry prairie province I thought it fitting to talk about water.

Water absorbs our feelings and emotions, claims Dr. Masaru Emoto. This could have a substantial impact on humans, with over 60% our bodies water. If water absorbs our feelings, are we 60% living the emotions we felt in the past?

The history behind Emoto's experiments with water is not clear, but he has taken thousands of pictures of super-cooled water crystals; they show that ugly crystals result from negative words or thoughts, and beautiful crystals, produced by positive ones.

This water crystal was shown the word "Joy"

In his experiments, pure water is 'treated' by a strong intention, prayers and blessings, or a word affixed to the bottle. The liquid is then supercooled, and pictures are taken. A team goes through the pictures with a key (what 'treatments' the water got) to establish any pattern. Masaru Emoto's research led him to the conclusion that positive words form beautiful, well-formed crystals (such as the one pictured here), and that negative thoughts lead to ill-formed, ugly crystals.

The only problem with Masaru's experiments is that they are not scientific enough. That doesn't mean he lacked high-tech equipment or had a team of sub-par research assistants, but that he didn't place enough controls in order to limit human interpretation in data collection.

What does that mean? Too many other conditions were variable to say if the results were really from a positive or negative word. Imagine growing two plants to see if talking to plants improves their condition. If you plant one in more fertile soil than the other, water the two plants with different amounts of water or different schedules, and let them have different amounts of sunshine, how do you know that one is doing better than the other only because of your talking? It simply requires isolating the one variable you want to find out.

Masaru, on the other hand, reportedly did not photograph the crystals at the same times or timeframes, and a team selected the most aesthetically pleasing photographs from the large number they had taken. He claims that difficulties in photographing the frozen water impede perfect control of this, and also, that after it is 'treated', the water is neutrally labelled (letters of the alphabet) for handling in the lab. The experiment as a whole is very open to personal bias and interpretation.

I am not prepared to fully validate Emoto's experiments as real science, but it is not something to dismiss, either. Human brains are hardwired to find patterns; science is only built to do so. After all, there is something magical about these messages.

picture from Masaru Emoto's website
"Emoto Project"--outreach to children
Wikipedia on Dr. Masaru Emoto