I can’t respond to everything that the reader writes (for space reasons; the post would get way too long for its own good), but a reader in the combox down yonder writes:
Since I would probably be the only one to speak in the man’s [PZ Myer's] defense, I feel I must do so. I would like to inquire if when a blog post critical of another individual is made, if that individual is first or opportunely informed so that he is able to defend himself if he so chooses or to write the blogger with a defense.
After putting up the post I considered e-mailing PZ Myers, but decided to wait an think about whether it would be the most constructive thing. I’m also open to taking down the post if that’s the most constructive thing. I’m just trying to figure out what the best thing to do is, which isn’t always easy with the limited intellectual resources we mortals have.
In any event, PZ Myers is welcome to defend himself, either on his own blog or here. Like anybody else, he’s certainly free to post in the combox (as long as he obeys DA RULZ). I’d also be happy to post e-mail (without headers) that he might send and then respond in a follow-up post (I’m not sure if he’d want to do that since he has his own blog, but the offer is there)
I do not deny that Myers is not perfect in charity, but neither is anyone here. I don’t think it can be said that his charity seems lesser than the charity of those who have written him hatefully.
This may be true, but it does not excuse Myers’ conduct. Just because Myers has encountered Catholics gravely lacking in charity does not excuse Myers from acting with a gravely lack of charity.
I do not see any evidence that would reliably indicate that Myers purpose is to offend. It seems rather by his statements his purpose is to make an artistic demonstration of the powerlessness of the consecrated bread. He is hoping, it would seem, that this would spur Catholics to realize its powerlessness and in turn to question their belief in transubstantiation.
I think that there is abundant evidence of Myers purpose including the desire to offend. The man heaps scorn and abuse on those who disagree with him. Consider the following (in blue, to keep the text distinct from the comboxer) excerpt from his original post:
There are days when it is agony to read the news, because people are so goddamned stupid. Petty and stupid. Hateful and stupid. Just plain stupid. And nothing makes them stupider than religion.
<SNIP>So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There’s no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I’m sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won’t be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart.
These remarks are by their nature intended to be offensive to Catholics, and the statement that he would desecrate the Eucharist "joyfully and with laughter in my heart" unambiguously indicates that this is not a dispassionate scientific demonstration of the falsity of Catholic belief regarding the Eucharist.
However, let’s suppose that that was his aim. He’s a scientist. How good would the science of the proposed experiment be?
Rotten.
In order to have a scientific demonstration of the falsity of Catholic belief regarding the Eucharist, you would need to have a proposition of Catholic theology regarding the Eucharist that could be falsified by his experiment.
But the Catholic Church does not claim that anything special will happen in the empirical realm if you desecrate a host. Lots of hosts have been desecrated in history, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, nothing special happens in the empirical realm.
Catholics would say that this is because Christ has chosen to make himself vulnerable in body to such disrespect, just as he made himself vulnerable to death on the Cross, though he informed his disciples that all he needed to do was ask and his Father would put twelve legions of angels at his disposal to defend him. The voluntary vulnerability of Christ as the Lamb of God is a central theme in Christian theology.
Whatever the Christian explanation for the fact that nothing unusual normally happens in the empirical realm when a host is desecrated, the fact is that the Church does not maintain that anything is supposed to happen.
PZ Myers and the Catholic Church thus agree that nothing unusual should be expected to happen if he desecrates a host.
His act of desecration therefore would not do anything to evidentially distinguish between the two belief systems (his and the Catholic Church’s).
That makes any proposed experiment along these lines Bad Science.
Such an experiment is no more a disconfirmation of Eucharistic theology than the legendary Russian astronaut who, while in space, looked around and declared that he didn’t see God. That’s no disconfirmation because nobody claimed he would see God.
In both cases, it’s a snide jab at religious belief based on an overly simplistic understanding of that belief.
In Myers’ case it is also a deliberate and cruel violation of the most deeply felt religious sensibilities of other human beings. He’s not just saying he doesn’t see evidence for God. He’s proposing to deliberately desecrate what other humans hold most sacred, which is bound to stir passionate feelings and cause profound personal pain to every faithful Catholic who hears of it, including those who are not sending him hate mail and who have caused no harm and done nothing to bring about this situation.
Even if PZ Myers does not respect the Eucharist, he should respect those people, who far outnumber the others.
The commenter also writes:
BTW, I’ve noticed some arguments against sacrality of the bread made by some in the comments thread over there which have adequate (internal to Catholicism, at least) theological explanation but which went unanswered. Some crude commends were made about the digestive process to which can be answered that that is far past the point where Jesus is no longer present in that fashion (that he or God is still present in another generalized fashion is problematic for theism in general). If Catholics were to answer in such manner I think that would be more impressive (that is liable to make a good a impression), than the personal back and forth a few have engaged in.
I agree. I think a display of reason in the face of vile abuse is more constructive than adding more vile abuse to the discussion.
