Maybe it's my imagination, but the great desecration in cracker-gate died down more quickly than I would have imagined. That's some kind of internal imagining contradiction, I suppose, quite appropriate for talking about religious questions, which themselves seem to be endless sources of linguistic tangles. When it comes to linguistics, no better place than The Language Log, where I found a tiny disquisition on Good and Evil connected with a new word (for me), "to linquify":
We need a new term for what is going on; although I don't in general think you can only grasp concepts that you have words for, I have learned to my cost that at least some people find it hard to get the hang of a new concept if they have no word for it, and Mark agrees that there is no term already in use. I therefore take the step of coining a new lexeme: linguify. It is a term relating to the writer's art, and in particular to journalism. Definition: To linguify a claim about things in the world is to take that claim and construct from it an entirely different claim that makes reference to the words or other linguistic items used to talk about those things, and then use the latter claim in a context where the former would be appropriate. (Geoffrey K. Pullum, Linguifying, The Language Log)
Outside of the fact that I keep reading it "liquify," it seems like a very useful and interesting word. Here is an example from another Language Logger, Eric BakoviÄ (Between Good and Evil, The Language Log):
Finally, consider the linguified semi-rhetorical question asked in this letter from William Payne of Overland Park, KS (emphasis added):
In "Faith, Reason, God," Richard Dawkins is quoted comparing faith to a disease yet pointing to Steven Weinberg's statement that for "good" people to do "evil" it "takes religion." If God does not exist, what do terms like good and evil really mean? Do they mean anything an individual wants them to mean? And if they can mean anything, don't they ultimately mean nothing?
Apparently for Mr. Payne, "good" and "evil" can only have meanings in the context of a God that gives them those meanings; what is "good" is what God says is good, and what is "evil" is what God says is evil -- and presumably, the only way we mere mortals can know whether to do good or to do evil is to consider what God says will happen (for example, if we do good, we go to heaven; if we do evil, we go to hell). This naive view of word meaning reminds me of an exchange between Jim McCloskey and a student in a class that I was an undergraduate reader for at UCSC:
McCloskey: Where do words come from?
Student: The dictionary.
McCloskey: Ah, but where does the dictionary come from?
Student: [hesitates a little] God?
Here the "linguifying" relates to making Good and Evil have meanings only if there is a God. There is a claim about the world (there is a God) that is transformed into a claim about words, that Good and Evil would have no meaning without the existence of a God. The claim of God's existence has been linguified.
This is the intellectual upper bound of the Good and Evil debate. As cracker-gate illustrated, there seems to be no lower bound. PZ and I have only met face to face once and while I have 15 years on him and am really a grandfather and he isn't, he is the one that seems grandfatherly. Certainly not the personification of Evil. He and I have very different styles and temperaments, but on the substance I am with him 100%. For me, this snippet from his long post is the core of the cracker desecration episode:
For even deeper inanity, let's not forget the Catholic blogs! We're talking some serious derangement there: look at Mark Shea's reaction.
I won't mince words. Myers is an evil man. And as evil men, particularly evil intellectuals, tend to be, he is also a mad man as are most of his acolytes and followers.
Myers and Co. are enmeshed in these lies because they have chosen evil. It is evil--archetypally evil--to desecrate the Eucharist. It's the sort of stuff archetypal bad guys in the movies do. It's completely unnecessary gratuitous evil.
To the Mark Shea's of the world, I would say...it's just a cracker.
I think if I were truly evil, I would have to demand that all of my acolytes be celibate, but would turn a blind eye to any sexual depravities they might commit. If I wanted to be an evil hypocrite, I'd drape myself in expensive jeweled robes and live in an ornate palace while telling all my followers that poverty is a virtue. If I wanted to commit world-class evil, I'd undermine efforts at family planning by the poor, especially if I could simultaneously enable the spread of deadly diseases. And if I wanted to be so evil that I would commit a devastating crime against the whole of the human race, twisting the minds of children into ignorance and hatred, I would be promoting the indoctrination of religion in children's upbringing, and fomenting hatred against anyone who dared speak out in defiance. (The Great Desecration, Pharyngula)
People have lots of different ideas of what constitutes Evil, but the idea that desecrating the Eucharist is evil -- as opposed to sacrireligious, obnoxious, offensive or any of a number of other adjectives (none of which I agree with but which seem to be held by some otherwise reasonable people) -- is so stupid it calls for a linguification:
To conflate "evil" and "desecration of the Eucharist" is to invite ridicule.
- Log in to post comments
I keep thinking of pasta and clams.
And if the cracker thing is dying out, one can only be thankful. I haven't seen more heat and less light in a long while.
Agree. I'd just call Myers' behaviour silly and juvenile. Unfortunately, a growing percentage of his non-biology appends have similar characteristics.
I think the reason for the relatively swift exit of the cracker incident is that, although it was(I would argue) important, it was important in such a way as to have very, very little content worth writing about. Most obviously, transubstantiation had essentially been elaborated, attacked, and defended in every conceivable way some centuries before anybody involved was born. The metaphysical concepts involved are essentially a medieval extension of Aristotle, and were fully formed by the end of that period. The attacks and apologetics for transubstantiation itself were basically all written by the time the reformation had died down a bit. There just isn't much left to write on the subject.
More important to this case, though, is that crackergate wasn't really about transubstantiation itself. It was, rather, about an attempt to assert and expand the power of a symbol by imposing it generally, followed by PZ's denunciation of that attempt, and attempt to deny and weaken the power of that symbol(and of symbols generally, which I thought was a really, really good and careful touch. The whole thing would have been much weaker had it been just about the cracker).
The whole business was important, despite having very little in the way of actual argument, because the point wasn't refutation; the point was visible and public refusal to respect a type of illegitimate authority. Argument is part of that; but ultimately, it comes down to standing up and refusing to be moved. Once that is done, there isn't anything more to say.
phisrow: Excellent points. I agree with all of them. Thanks.
"Linguify"? If this is meant to describe a mis-extrapolation or a categorical error, the term seems misapplied - what has it to do with language, or even with tongues?
The concept seems potentially quite useful. The label needs work (by "work" I mean "replacement").
I couldn't take reading through all the comments on PZ Meyer's blog, but I think I got the gist of things. It all does seem rather silly, but I tend to keep an eye on such things because movements may grow out of arguments and what seems silly now could be scary later.
As a former Catholic, I found it amusing to see Meyer's alluding to himself as a victim of the Catholic League, which is basically one guy. Also, he could eat as many crackers as he wants, since he's unlikely to get one that's been consecrated (unless he goes to confession and then to mass for communion - LOL, like THAT would happen), and only consecrated wafers are considered the body of Christ.
I like the concept of linguify, but I'm not crazy about the word itself. Kinda has a Colbert ring of "truthiness" about it.
"It all does seem rather silly, but I tend to keep an eye on such things because movements may grow out of arguments and what seems silly now could be scary later."
------------------------------------------------------
Last two weeks I have spent more time in reading Science Blogs' comments on PZ Meyers issue, at the same time to read the EM archive about Melanie Mattson's legacy.
I have posted my comments here on EM about Richard Dawkins' scientism and his anti-religious fundamentalism , and PZ Meyers radical movement which has the early sign like Red Guard in Chinese Cultural Revolution. IMO, PZ has tried to maintain his movement by coupling with Dawkins and now seems more radical, sort of outperforming; he is destroying himself, his family, and his University. I hope that his friends could help him out before too late.
Melanie's salty language suddenly come to my mind so clear, "We are raising up a full generation of narcissists."
One thing is sure to me; both religious and scientism fundamentalisms are fading.
Evil, or the lack thereof, can not be determined only by "what" people do (eg. desecration of the eucharist). For evil to be known, one must know "why" they have done so. If the intention of the "evil" act is to be hurtful or offensive, it is evil. If it is done out of blind ignorance, it is not.
My money is on the cracker desecrator being evil. But thats just my opinion.
pft: So if your reason for saying that is to be hurtful or offensive you have done evil? I guess that gives a new meaning to Arendt's "banality of evil."
Why invent a new word? What's wrong with "equivocate"?
And as for this:
"Myers and Co. are enmeshed in these lies because they have chosen evil. "
That's not some far-out claim. It's straight from the bible: John 3:19, in fact. It's woth realising that this kind of lunacy is not a late addition to the religion that is christianity: at the very heart of the religion is a loving god that is going to burn people in hell forever, and who requires a human sacrifice (his only son, no less) to stop him from doing it.
I personally believe that in this world no one can represent God to condemn who is or is not evil; nevertheless I also believe that God is living. He has His time and His way to reveal His salvation plan, in the past, now and in the future.
We are living in repentance with hope. Everyone, no exception. The meaning of our creatureliness implies our relation with the Creator; we are created by Him. There is no way except by humility in front of Him.
In short, God has mercy for everyone which includes PZ Meyers.
He is also just. He will judge in His time and His way.
Again we live in repentance with hope and the promise that He has shown to His chosen people.
It is my stance not to judge PZ Meyers, the issue of evil or not. It is my stance to warn him not do more than what he can do, do not try to replace God. ( PS. Greg Laden in his blog mentioned that he found that PZ talked in radio as he was the supermodel was unfavorable. So did many atheists has considered that PZ had crossed the border of civility.)
We together should help him out. IMO.
palwan: Believe what you want. I believe there is no God and PZ needs no mercy from you or anyone else. He did right as far as I am concerned. Your beliefs are your own business. Why do you have a compulsion to share them here? I'm not saying you shouldn't. I'm asking why any of us should care what you believe. How are you going to "help him out"? By condescending to him?
Paiwan,
I think it is time for us to "shake the dust from our sandals".
Goodbye, Revere
Library Lady
palwan, LL: I didn't mean for it come out as short tempered as it sounded. It was actually a genuine question but I wrote it while waiting for my son in law to call to tell us our third grandchild had been successfully delivered by C-section. My daughter had already lost one late in pregnancy with some serious surgical complications so we were on edge. I am happy to say he called within the hour to say everyone is doing fine and the baby is healthy (6 lobs 9 oz.) and so is the mom. We are relieved. At any rate, I was irritated by what I thought was condescension and expressed it poorly. Apologies to all.
Dear Revere,
I wasn't really going to come back, but I wanted to see if there was a reply from Paiwan. We really try so hard to be fair and open. You ask Paiwan why he subjects himself to the Sunday Sermonettes (as I had decided not to do, but I broke my rule today), and express his opinion. It is probably because the Eucharist is important to him, so he took the risk of being ridiculed by the other bloggers here, as I have been. We expect that from others, but not from you.
I asked you a long time ago, "Do you want me here or not?"
You said you did. I expect you to be fair to Paiwan.
I accept your apology. I'm really sorry about your anxiety over the baby and your daughter. You know, maybe you shouldn't blog when something as stressful as that is going on. I'll pray for their continued health, and I'm happy for you, Grandrevere.
Love,
Library Lady
Interesting revere, your response that is.
paiwan and LL can be tolerated because they're "good" and MRK not tolerated because he's "bad"? Who really needs the meds here?
In my eye organized religion is just watered down politics. At least MRK has the good sense to keep it civil in the religion arena. And he can take his punches without getting too spaced out, something everyone should think about.
Lea; Who says I don't tolerate MRK? He has probably written more words here than I have. I think I have a right to come back at him as hard as he comes at me, don't you? (Or have you forgotten some of the things he has said because you agreed with them?) And sometimes his stuff is so far out to lunch I just throw up my hands and want to say, "What are you smoking." In your case I know what you are smoking but I know he doesn't smoke what you do. So I suggested an alternative. :)
Ok,okay everyone settle down a bit....
Revere is allowed to get stressed out a bit too dammit. I think I would be as well. BUT, I do try to keep it civil unless someone levels a direct attack at me. I have never, ever heard Revere use the word bad or evil in reference to me or anyone else for that matter. Demented, out of touch, denialist but those are descriptives of something else. He has never aimed anything ever in anger at me, maybe irritation at best.
I also try not to comment in the religion arena because as with all things religious they are personal as is the lack of it.
My views on those that are of a religious bent that would attack others physically or verbally get right on out there. I would do harm to the attacker, plain and simple. Be it a Baptist with a bent, a Catholic who would try to rack someone who wasnt straight enough for them, or even me as an Episcopalian when I say to the priest that I got a 1:15 buy in at the casino for a tournament on a Sunday and he needs to cut it short.
In that same breath, I ask if he wants to go.
I personally try to avoid the S. Sermonettes because its an attack on faith and thats all it is. Not a beliefs system so really there is nothing to attack him on because he doesnt believe. Proselytizing folks and reverse of that by Revere to the opposing view.
There is absolutely no scientific proof of God..... I think that we all may bump into him eventually and Reveres positions on humanity are far better than mine. Mine are to kill them all and let God sort them out....if necessary.
As for defending Revere thats not what this is. I believe that by espousing his beliefs (really the lack of them) he is not doing anything but putting out what he thinks. I agree with his position...Scientifically speaking there is no God.
But thats what faith is for.
For your information revere, I DO NOT smoke cannabis, so you can put that one to bed.
I am a medical marijuana advocate and supporter.
When I DO smoke cannabis it will 1.) either legal OR 2.) I'll be in Amsterdam.
When I read your comment to paiwan revere-be I was relieved, "finally" I said. And I would gamble to say that there are someothers whose thoughts might wrap around the same concept.
By the way MRK, just calling a spade a spade, as I see it.
Lea: I don't care if you smoke weed or not. I don't smoke it either but didn't consider it a slight against you. Try it. You might like it. As for palwan, I was serious about my question and I did think he was condescending to PZ (and both palwan and LL to non-believers; how would they feel if I always signed off saying I hoped that some day they would see the Light of Reason) but I don't like talking to people the way I did. Just got back from the hospital and daughter and son-in-law are looking fine and the baby is cute as a button. His 14 month old sib is due shortly at our house, not suspecting his life is about to be turned upside down. If the two of them live as long as my mother lived they will be greeting the 22nd century. It's sobering to wonder what the world will be like then. The only thing I feel certain of is that it won't be like this one, just as the one my mother was born into was vastly different than this one.
And Lea, I dont think that Revere will be attempting to bring them up as atheists. I am firm in the belief that he will present both sides of the story. One has complete and perfect proof that God doesnt exist, the other complete and perfect faith (nearly for most) that he does.
Take a break Revere, I'll be just as pregnant for you tomorrow as I was today...
R.
Dear Library Lady:
Thank you for breaking your rule for me that has been my anticipation. :-) I have learned a lot from you; you have balanced well between humility and your courage to voice as a kind of spiritual love for Revere and many others. Also you are a forgiving person.
In fact, your spiritual love has been one of my initiations to come to this thread. The second reason is I've cared for people like K. But my inputs have been interpreted as a kind of being condescending to others that I have felt sorry, perhaps it is relating to my style. If you Google this archives by paiwan, there have more than three hundred posts, at least it has reflected my consistent care for something. (Revere, please spell my name correctly, otherwise your posts will be lost under my true name, not palwan.):-) In fact, after last X'mas up to now, I have spent more than 400 Hrs in reading for preparing to participate here, I have been happy to do it and I have learned more for myself.
I remembered one time I read the archives about Melanie Mattson's, Melanie asked Revere how about his violin, Revere answered that he gave up. The person David posted that "God never gives up on us." Melanie affirmed this analog of the post which has touched me deeply.
Dear Library Lady, in the end of the post, I would like to share with you and friends of King Solomon's story which is a rather popular one. God asked Solomon what he wanted. He said, "Give your servant an understanding heart to judge your people and to distinguish right from wrong. The Lord was pleased that Solomon made this request. So God said to him: Because you have asked this-not for a long life for you, nor for riches, but for understanding so that you may know what is right-I do as you requested.
I sincerely hope that thru our postings here, we all have expanded our understanding.
Dear Paiwan,
Thank you for the kind words. It is wonderful to have you and MRK on this blog. When he said, "OK, Okay, everyone settle down a bit..." it just brought a smile, reminded me of a Sherrif Matt Dillon in Dodge City.
Be good,
Love,
Library Lady
Dear Library Lady and Revere:
I have known that Library Lady is a recovering patient and she has cared for this blog and particularly you. Therefore, I would like to convey my points with LL's company to you. In fact, I have been struggled to say or not; I also don't mind you will cut me off from this blog.
First point, you have announced your mission of blog is to make a better world by public health as focus which includes the care of mental health by atheism methodology.
I have read the past posts and now, I have found that the quality is descending; you are not creating a better world. Several followers of you and your self have shown the danger of mental sickness. It is a typical sign of the bankruptcy of atheism in general.
Second point, you emphasize the freedom of speech, but you have neglected the responsibility of the associated consequences. Particularly the balanced is lacking, your listening has blind point, and your expression is lack of humility to help people to find the truth.
You have chance to reverse the descending by true repentance in front of God and have a new start, you and your family and the people who come to this blog all will be blessed.
I am very sincerely about my post, if you are not happy, you can cut me after this post.
paiwan: This is not an open forum on religion. It is our blog and is mainly about public health. We make the comment thread available to readers, pretty much without exclusion unless they behave badly, but it isn't designed to be a platform for you to proselytize. You can start your own blog for that. You are free to believe whatever you wish about atheism, god, religion or whether or not I am going to hell or require your god's mercy. That's between you and your subconscious. I am not involved. It's not my problem. It's yours.
Dear Revere,
If this is "not an open forum on religion" then what exactly is the function of the Sunday Sermonette, and how does the S.S. advance your mission for public health services?
You ARE involved with the sermonette, it is your concept, you maintain it. I might suggest that you separate the sermonette from your science blog and "start your own blog for that" as you advise Paiwan to do.
I have questioned the value of the sermonette before. To me it is a distraction from the science I need to know about. It would be similar to my doctor spending the first 20 minutes on my heath issues during my checkup and the last 5 minutes on his philosophy of life and then ridicule my viewpiont.
Love,
Library Lady
LL: We have been writing the SS for years here. Many people only come to read that. You are free to stay away on Sundays and come other days if you are interested in other things we write about here. We believe combating false consciousness and superstition and the really bad things organized religion does is a public health function and we have written about this view on the other site. The front page is ours and we have been very lenient in allowing others, yourself and paiwan included, to give your views here, however much we think you are wrong and sometimes objectionable. We allow you to say how much you disagree with us and I will say we disagree very much with you and paiwan, whose views we find often offensive. But that's the way the world is and we rarely complain about it. That's all I have to say on matter.
Dear Revere,
I truly did not understand what the Sunday Sermonette was, but now that you have explained it to me-- "We believe combating false consciousness and superstition and the really bad things organized religion does is a public health function..."--I understand.
You are simply wrong. It is NOT a public health function.
I'm afraid we must really part ways.
I sincerely hope your new grandchild and your daughter continue to do well, and thank you for all the good information you gave me, as well as for your patience.
Love,
Library Lady
Dear Library Lady and Revere:
If I have no trust and respect for Revere, I would not get involved with this kind of comments. I was risking the loss- a kind of spiritual love. I have no selfish motive, no interest in knitting, very noble intention for caring the sustainability of EM leadership overall.
Not long ago, one poster said that EM behaved "like" adults, I thought that it was a slip of tongue, but later did mention the leading of PZ Meyers, I just chuckled.
If Revere read very careful only the comments of this thread; one comment say it was juvenile, woh! What a contrast to Revere's grandfatherly; and a comment said it is silly and maybe would turn scary.
PZ Meyers had good contribution as one of the founding parties for Science Blog which everyone have been appreciated. As the tradition in a great country like George Washington's, we respect the founding people to set up system to promote science and science education which would be an enjoyable platform for everyone which include for religious people. Unfortunately, it has become part of strong knitting Atheism Blog militantly like rogue countries Burma, North Korea's propagandas. You may like to read this reference:
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2008/07/on_pz_don_imus_atheism_…
I would not be surprised at what Revere's "We believe combating false consciousness and superstition and the really bad things organized religion does is a public health function..." It is a typical Dawkins' polemics of antireligious propaganda. So, Library Lady, please forgive Revere, because it was not Revere's original invention. IMO, he just ignorantly copied from Dawkins which influences have been fading. I had pinpointed his mistake of scientism before on this bolg. I can list many points for debates which I assumed that a place of public health blog should be a proper platform. As Library Lady has convinced me that Revere is a thinking person and deserve a lot of trust and respect in him. He should be able to judge and bring the best for all of us.
I don't care to be labeled many titles. In fact, the worst titles that I ever had was I took Revere's advice to visit PZ Meyers' blog. I got a big American banana and a fancy title-Prince of Moron. I enjoyed it!
paiwan: No use getting into a polemic with you over this. We just see the world differently. Maybe someday you'll change. But there are two factual matters I wish to clear up. First, I never suggested you visit PZ's blog. You did that on your own out of your own interest. Second, my ideas don't come from Dawkins. I had them long before I read any Dawkins and my views on religion are in fact different than his. All atheists do not think alike any more than all theists do. Meanwhile, stay safe. I think you'll find science a good way to do maximize your changes there.
Dear Paiwan and MRK,
I forgot to say goodbye to you two. I hope you will succeed in your work and stay true to your values. I have enjoyed your posts and will miss them.
Love,
Library Lady
Dear Library Lady:
I hereby grant you a short leave :- ) with the verse from Apostle Paul ( Romans 8:28) " Brothers and sisters: We know that all things work for good for those who love God..."
( My email: sisy_marine@yahoo.com)
And we will not let you part long :- ) You have reminded me a person-Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, American side's Hospice founder. You have special gift-sensibility and sensitivity in spirit and ethics. Like Elisabeth's un-conditional love for self. Do you know her another analog of dancing across the galaxies?
Since you have cared for a person and are upset, so I'd share with a joke of Revere with you. One time Revere debated with me and he said when he died just like his VW65 beetle sat there. OK, the upcoming story is like this:
If Revere has had done great service of making a better world( Hebrew tradition is called son of God), then when he died, according to Elisabeth, there will have galaxies firework to receive him into Heaven, the galaxies firework perhaps will cost a billion folds of the spending in Iraqi War. Maybe I went there first, who knows? Upon my greeting to him, I'd say, "I beat you, VW beetle." Not finished yet, right side of me standing a lovely young person also greets him, "You, bad Daddy, never expect to meet me again?" In that moment, Revere will have tears flow like river thru his cheek I bet.
For you and me, by God's grace, we will meet again, and our greeting would be like this, "Hey, we owed each other a hug."And we will have a lot of laughters.
I don't know why the difference of man and woman is so big, Revere doesn't know my science in fact very good. As Sue Bender said, "People don't think that you are there doesn't mean that we are really not there."
Here goes the science, because female have double X and male only has one X. Female has evolved more advanced than male, so to speak. I wonder one day if Mrs. R comes out to manage the blog for a while, maybe will make a difference.
So, dear LL, don't be upset.
Talking about the different world, I'd like to share with you below:
Indeed Revere and me live in different worlds. He used to defend for PhD candidates, high profile to win. Me, in business world, slightly lose to win, therefore I get customers' orders. It is incommensurable of course. Revere basically is not good at paradoxical acumen. So, please do not need to upset too long. :-)