Ever have a blog crush go sour? I've admired PZ Myers for a while now for his
evolution resources, his take on the ID-in-schools battles and his love of science. But when I read his post on
Ken Ham, it disappointed the hell out of me.
It's not that I support Ken Ham. Ham's as full of shit as a Christmas turkey and trying to brainwash kids into rejecting science in favor of fundamentalism. But in his fury at Ham's actions, Myers attacks the beliefs of moderate Christians like yours truly and ends up sounding like an angry fundamentalist himself. It is not his best work.
"God." Once again, I'm going to give good, liberal progressive Christians the vapors and point out that there is the destroyer, the idea that ruins young minds and corrupts education: god.
Fundamentalists, whatever their stripe, believe there is only one true evil. For religious fundies, godlessness is the archevil that explains everything bad. For Myers, it's god. But this black-or-white thinking is a cognitive distortion, no matter who's practicing it. If only we could get everyone to follow God's word, say the religious fundies, we'd live in a great world free of gay sex and uppity women. While in Myers' view, all children would grow up smart and our educational system would straighten itself out if only everyone quit believing in God. Right. Just like magic!
Ham has god on the brain, and he exploits other people who have god on the brain to give him millions of dollars so he can run around the country and put god on the brain of the next generation.
No argument from me. Back when I was Redneck Tween, getting dragged to church every Sunday by my Southern Baptist grandmother because my atheist/agnostic parents needed a break from my smart mouth, I realized that certain aspects of her church were like a Ponzi scheme, specifically the notion that one would burn in hell for not 'witnessing' to unbelievers. You had to recruit or burn. I didn't have a framework for this until I went to college and learned about Kant's ends principle, at which point I could say, yes, this is an immoral manipulation of people's guilt and fear to keep one's own ass out of eternal hellfire. That's what Ham is doing, in my opinion, and it's wrong.
I know. Many of you support science, and you carefully set aside your religious biases when assessing ideas about the world--you've managed to find means to cope with this infectious lie. That doesn't change the ugly fact that it is a lie, a crippling corruption,
This is exactly the kind of language the Bible-pounding pastor at my grandmother's church used to describe unbelief and the secular world. 'You may think you're living a good life, but without Jesus in your heart you are living a lie!' It's the black-or-white sales pitch fundamentalists use to convince people that theirs is the absolute truth and everything else is false. Here Myers just inverts that come-on in the service of atheism.
Furthermore, if moderate Christians support science, who cares what else they believe? I could believe that when I die I'll get to ride Sparkle Pony over Tom DeLay's bare ass in perpetuity, but as long as I don't try to convince anyone else that they'll get a turn, does it matter? Or does everyone who supports evolution and science have to be ideologically pure the way fundies have to be pure of heart?
and that many people don't even try to sequester their superstitions and cultivate their rational side.
So all religions are all bad, all the time and they cause everything bad and stupid. We're back to the fundie-style cognitive distortion we saw earlier. I see irrationality in nonreligious people, too--the ones who go for crazy shit like ear candling and the folks who only eat raw foods because, as one such devotee told me, "humans are the only animals who cook their food so it must not be natural." I live in Austin. I am surrounded by proof that atheism and superstition are not mutually exclusive.
When I hear Christians make excuses for their religion, it's like hearing smallpox survivors praising their scars. "It didn't kill me, and these poxy marks add character to my face! Those deadly cases have nothing to do with my own delightful disease."
So we do nothing. We let the infection simmer along, encouraging our children to get exposed to it, praising it, howling in anger at those who dare to say the obvious and point out that it's a poison, a mind-killer, vacuous noise and evil nonsense. We let the absurdity flourish.
You know what might work better than respecting other people's right to believe what they want while setting boundaries to keep them from imposing their beliefs on others? Attacking people. Especially people who believe that you're evil to begin with. That'll show 'em that you really have their best interests at heart and they'll jump right onto your bandwagon. While you're at it, go after people who may not think exactly as you do but who support your goals for science education. Allies are overrated.
We know exactly where the vileness grows, in the cesspool of religion, yet we veer away from confronting the source, draining the contagion, eliminating the vector of ignorance.
And you would do this how, exactly? Re-education camps? Stonings? Psychotropic meds in the water? Prosecution of thought crimes? Once we've drained the contagion and eliminated the vector of ignorance, you're still gonna have to get those damned raw-food atheists to use a stove. Tell me you're just feeling pissy here, PZ, because this sounds a lot like Christian Dominionist talk, with atheism in place of God. Try it out:
All religious organizations, congregations etc. other than strictly Fundamentalist Christianity atheism would be suppressed. Nonconforming Evangelical, main line and liberal Christian religious institutions would no longer be allowed to hold services, organize, proselytize, etc. [edit mine]
On the other hand, that worked out well in the Soviet Union so why not give it a shot here in the land of free speech?
We encourage it to thrive and it leads to well-meaning parents pressuring their impressionable kids into gulping down the ignorance-laced koolaid.
Because if it weren't for religion, parents would never transmit any wrongheaded or silly ideas to their kids. My own well-meaning, atheist/agnostic parents certainly never told me anything that turned out to be wrong or misguided. (Hi, Mom and Dad. If you're reading this, it turns out that you really can't snake-proof a bird dog with a garden hose. And sorry about the mothballs not repelling squirrels! Love you guys!)
So that's the gist of it. The comments went on forever, mostly pro-religion or con-, but as one commenter pointed out the focus should be on making sure good science is available in schools. Arguing over whose beliefs/unbeliefs are the purest and best wastes energy and time that supporters of science could better spend elsewhere.
When all was said and done, I felt that Myers was echoing what he despises--reactionary, anger-fueled dogma. I can understand being frustrated that the hydra-headed fundamentalist movement keeps popping up like Whack a Mole wasting time and money trying to slip its agenda into the public schools. I understand longing for a quick fix to the age-old problem of herding the easily led in directions that don't harm the rest of us.
I like to think that those of us in the middle ideologically could ally with people like Myers to beat back religious fundamentalist incursions into our laws and schools. But the notion of trading one brand of furious, oversimplified, controlling ideology for another is damned unappealing. If I wanted that, I'd be a fundamentalist myself.
Labels: politics