Quick Takes: Taking Visas to Gaza, Science Blogger Under Attack, Bible Prof Could Be Fired, J-School Abroad, Albright Drops SAT

Comestible Jesus

The contretemps stirred up by P.Z. Myers’s blog on cracker-napping (aka Abstraction of the Host) reminds us of some lingering, quite unpleasant truths about this culture. Catholics, of course, have the right to believe whatever myths they prefer. But to insist that a university punish a student for mocking their absurdities is arrogant beyond belief. If the hierarchy wants to maintain the doctrine of transsubstantiation, nobody’s going to stop them. But it passes from the ridiculous to the truly dangerous when they appeal to civil or even university bureaucracies to vindicate a dogma that is every bit as screwy as anything propounded by militant Islamists! We’re not very far from the hysteria that greeted “The Satanic Verses” or the fanaticism that killed Theo van Gogh. Just as much as Moslems, Catholics (and proponents of any other supernatural religion) have to realize that defending the peculiar quirks of their special creed is their own lookout. Trying to summon the wrath of the authorities on behalf of their medieval twaddle puts them on the same plane as Osama bin Ladin or the men who murder their own daughters in obedience to a ridiculous notion of patriarchal honor.

fossil, at 9:05 am EDT on July 11, 2008

Let’s think logically

The seminary requiring that its professors support a common, fundamental doctrine such as authority of scripture (and how that is defined by institution) is not only understandable, but it is necessary. It is no different than a university department of evolutionary biology requiring that its professors support the theory of evolution as a foundational truth to their study of the development of life.

Can you imagine a professor in that evolutionary biology department publishing a paper on cell mitosis, and suggesting that a creator made the cell just so, explaining how this process could not be a result of evolutionary development. Not only would the professor come under severe scrutiny, but the university would, by association, be accused of supporting creation theory to some degree in its evolutionary biology department.

In order for there to be a productive dialogue on issues — on any issue — we must mutually agree on a set of assumptions about the topic (whether consciously or subconsciously). In an evolutionary biology department, you begin with the assumption that evolution theory (as defined historically and/or by the institution) is true. In a seminary — at least at Westminster — you begin with the assumption that the Bible is authoritative (as tradition and/or the seminary has defined it).

Is there a place to question the authority of the Bible? Yes. Is there a place to question the theory of evolution? Yes. But the foundational assumptions mutually agreed upon by people within an organization define the organization itself, and those assumptions are an appropriate benchmark by which members of that organization can/should be measured. When a professor publically questions the validity of evolution, he/she necessarily distances himself/herself from the organization for which belief in evolution is a benchmark.

You may not hold the same assumptions as Westminster (and you may think their assumptions are rediculous), but you can not accuse them of holding too high or too narrow a standard without also accusing nearly every other organization in existance... including your own.

alp, at 11:20 am EDT on July 11, 2008

Hey G. Fitsimmons & alp!

The difference between the “assumptions” upon which evolutionary biology and religion are based is that science is based on EVIDENCE not mere belief. If the right to “specify what constitutes that faith” is confused with —or worse replaces— real education about ideas with bases in demonstrable fact, then the only possible dialogue remaining is between those who are rational and those who are not.

Skeptic, at 2:55 pm EDT on July 11, 2008

Myers

One of the important things to remember about the internet is that it is very easy to say things like “Wow, you wouldn’t believe the hate mail I’m getting” or to point out all the stupid comments from religious ass-hats RIGHT HERE ON MY BLOG, when in fact, it’s all made up. When in fact, because no one asks you to actually produce the hate mail in any type of concrete form backed up by evidence that the mail actually came from any real people and the fact that anyone can post a comment at your blog saying anything and pretending to be anyone...that gives us ample reason to throw pounds of salt around when anyone sniffs about the attacks they’re under or the ignorant opposing comments they’re receiving.

For, in fact, who knows where the comments are coming from? Who knows if commenters claiming to be outraged Christians are actually that? Who knows what reasonable comments from Christians are being deleted?

Why should anyone trust that anything about this — including the specific comments in the blog conversation — is authentic?

Teresa, at 7:30 pm EDT on July 12, 2008