Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Thursday, June 17, 2004

Worshippers at the secular altar? Oh, please.

Both Washington Monthly and Yglesias have linked to this deadly stupid opinion piece by Klinghoffer. It's basically arguing that everything is religious, from the Atkins Diet to global warming, and that the name of that religion is secular humanism. And secular humanism is "an aggressive religion competing for converts, a faith lacking the candor to speak openly of its aims," with the goal of crushing the Judeo-Christian faiths.

Sorry, Mr Klinghoffer, but we secular humanists don't even consider those Abrahamic religions to be on the radar of our world-wide aspirations. Right now, we're locked in a battle to the death with the religion of Innie vs. Outie Bellybuttons, and after we finish them off, we plan to move on to fighting the Bed, Bath, and Beyond faith. That should leave us sharpened to a knife edge for combat with a real, major religion: the Trekkies. That one may make us break a sweat, but we shall eventually prevail, since they have been weakened by factional struggles.

But Jews and Christians? Pfah. Weenies. What challenge is there in mindless weasels who fall for this kind of BS?

There is a secular creation account—evolution through random mutation and natural selection, a just-so story increasingly challenged by scientists. A few years ago the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think tank, took out advertisements in the New York Review of Books and the New Republic listing a hundred distinguished Darwin-doubting scholars, at institutions from Berkeley to MIT.

Ooooh. They bought ads in newspapers and magazines. How freaking scholarly. Ranks 'em right up there with Calvin Klein and the press agents for Dumb and Dumberer in the intellectual pantheon.


Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/810/1hYW5p7p/

Comments:
#3557: — 06/17  at  11:31 PM
I seem to recall once writing a piece on whether everything was religious <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html>. This is such an old canard.



's avatar #3559: Ben — 06/18  at  02:34 AM
Klinghoffer's sources have been traced to a "bunch of drunken frat boys" who may or may not respond to the codename "IP Freely".

"The great trouble is that the preachers get the children from six to seven years of age and then it is almost impossible to do anything with them." --Thomas Edison.



#3561: — 06/18  at  04:57 AM
I don't collect stamps. I had no idea not collecting stamps was a hobby. Wow! I practice all kinds of hobbies and, apparently, religions.
Next time Mrs DS gives me grief for not getting out the house more, I'll be happy to explain that not getting out of the house is actually an outside activity.



#3563: — 06/18  at  06:35 AM
I'm quite a cat lover myself, does that count? I always thought that I just sorta liked cats but now I realise that there is more to it. We worship at the altar of the great Mitzy awaiting the day when she returns out of her tree to free the world from human tyranny. When this happens all the true believers (cat people) will be swept up to the great hunting ground in the sky when all others, (christians, dogs) will be hunted and almost killed but mercilessly kept alive to be played with for eternity.



#3565: — 06/18  at  07:34 AM
I worship at the altar of the great Cuddles the Gigantic Guinea Pig. Sometimes she showers her worshippers with presents. Sometimes she answers prayers for fertilizer. When I die, I will be transported to some metaphysical afterlife place where I sit in a field full of clover and chase away anyone who would bother Cuddles. Stuff like that.



#3567: — 06/18  at  07:57 AM
What if you're a Christian and a "NASCAR dad" for example, isn't that a conflict of interests? I mean you're not supposed to idolise inanimate objects or anyone but Yahweh.



#3569: Brent — 06/18  at  08:52 AM
Just because something can be practiced or performed religiously, does not necessarily make that certain something a religion - otherwise Monday Night Football would get tax breaks.



#3573: isabel — 06/18  at  09:51 AM
I, too, am a Church of the Feline congregant. I worship my six living cats and my one deceased cat. These are my gods and no other(s) shall come before them, even other cats (sorry you mortal-cat-loving people, you've been deceived), unless, of course they become my cats. Because, you see, MY cat gods are the real gods. In fact, I spend much of my time trying to inject this truism into everyone else's life. I just want them to know the truth,to know how they've been deceived, to be saved; it's for their own good, really.



#3574: — 06/18  at  10:02 AM
Such a small world. I knew David Klinghoffer when he was an undergrad, about 20 yrs ago. I was his graduate instructor in an Ancient Greek course. A nice fellow. I've been very disheartened to see how fanatical he's become. I recall an Op Ed piece in which he maintained that the destruction of artifacts in Iraq wouldn't be such big deal: Mesopotamia's important contribution to the world, after all, was monotheism. (You know: Abraham, Ur of the Chaldees, and all that.) As they say in the Harry Potter books, he's gone mental.



#3579: Ophelia Benson — 06/18  at  11:47 AM
"I don't collect stamps. I had no idea not collecting stamps was a hobby."

Ha! That's a good one. I seem to get into that 'atheism is a religion just the way theism is' argument approximately every half hour. I tend to take the 'So not believing in something is a religion? So not believing in the tooth fairy is a religion? And not believing there's a china teapot circling the sun is a religion? And etc' line. I'll have to use that hobby one, that's very good.



#3580: — 06/18  at  11:47 AM
Hey, Klinghoffer calls the Discovery Institute a Seattle based "think tank". Talk about faith!



Trackback: Underneath Klinghoffer's dress Tracked on: Neuroinflammation.net (66.98.250.39) at 2004 06 18 12:51:15
I saw it once, and I was going to ignore it, but when I saw it twice, I decided to take a look. Ugh. What a mess. I am referring to David Klinghoffer’s latest op-ed in the LA Times, “Worshipers at the Secular Altar”. You can read it for yourself (be sure to use BugMeNot, to bypass the damned password/registration business), but it is, I warn you, a sight which will sore your eyes.



#3588: — 06/18  at  02:23 PM
Let us now sing the following secular hymn from Our Book of Pop:

There's got to be a morning after
If we can hold on thru the night
We have a chance to find the sunshine
Let's keep on looking for the light.

Oh can't you see the morning after?
It's waiting right outside the storm
Why don't we cross the bridge together
And find the place that's safe and warm.

It's not too late, we should be giving
Only with love can we climb
It's not too late, not while we're living
Let's put our hands out in time.

There's got to be a morning after
We're moving closer to the shore
I know we'll be there by tomorrow
And we'll escape the darkness
We won't be searching anymore.

There's got to be a morning after
(There's got to be a morning after)...



#3591: — 06/18  at  03:01 PM
Not believing there's a china teapot circling the sun obviously _is_ a religion, since such a faith must be held in the face of evidence to the contrary. I have a whole shelf of china teapots circling the sun at the same rate I do.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Seriously, what is the difference between doing something religiously and believing in a religion? In the case of religions that worship a personal deity, the distinction is obvious. But there are religious groups (some Buddhists, for example) who don't worship any personal god. They engage in religious practices to achieve some change in themselves. One could argue that Atkins dieters do the same thing (although I know many/most people of both groups would argue that it isn't the same thing at all).

I agree there's a difference, but I can't get my mind around it clearly enough to put it into words. Anyone else have a clearer understanding of this?



#3594: — 06/18  at  05:29 PM
I think "religion" implies a bit of the supernatural... for instance, Buddhists have reincarnation and nirvana and the like.



's avatar #3598: Ben — 06/18  at  08:20 PM
Buddhists don't all necessarily believe in reincarnation. And Nirvana is a goal meditative mental state in which the brain ceases to acknowledge its own existence, nothing supernatural required. Scientology doesn't really have anything to do with supernaturalism either. I'm slightly superstitious when I'm watching sport, but that doesn't make it a religious act. I'm sure there are other exceptions to the rule.

"The great trouble is that the preachers get the children from six to seven years of age and then it is almost impossible to do anything with them." --Thomas Edison.



#3599: — 06/18  at  09:18 PM
It's pretty clear that there are no necessary and sufficient conditions for counting as a religion. For every condition you can point to (belief in a God) there will be a group that doesn't meet it, yet we want to call it a religion (say, Buddhism). Likewise, there will surely be conditions that some groups meet, yet we don't want to call them a religion. That religion is a "family resemblence" concept (In the Wittgensteinian sense), however, isn't an argument that anything can count as a religion. To say that atheism is a religion is just to say that the concept "religion" has ceased to uniquely pick anything out anymore.



#3600: — 06/18  at  10:25 PM
More thoughts on the definition of religion: it seems a necessary condition for religion that one believe in something(s) that can't be verified by a neutral observer using reason. God(s) and Nirvana fall into this category. Atkins followers, by contrast, are using a process with real science behind it. (It may be well-done or poorly-done science, but that's another topic.)

So those of us who believe there is no god (a positive assertion of something not verifiable) may well meet this necessary condition. But is it sufficient to be religious belief?



#3601: — 06/19  at  03:02 AM
Religion seeks control of otherwise uncontrolable events, usually through the intersession of supernatural powers or entities. Simple as that. That is why death, perhaps the most uncontrollable even any human faces, is often at the top of the list of things religion is concerned with.

You might say that Buddhism doesn't place overcoming death at it's center, but it seems to redefine the nature of reality in an attempt to circumvent the stress associated with those uncontrollable events.



#3605: — 06/19  at  02:21 PM
Ben:
Scientology doesn't really have anything to do with supernaturalism either.


Scientology is not a religion, it was L. Ron Hubbard's tax dodge. When I first moved to LA, I did some research on it -- it's a cult, pure and simple, and a scam to bilk struggling actors (in particular) out of the very little money they have left over after paying for their SAG dues. The "Scientology" fed to the celebrities is very different than the Scientology forced on the nobodies, and I think it's disgusting that none of these celebrities bother to do the research to learn what's going on far beneath them in the organization.

To have Scientology qualify as a tax exempt "religion," Hubbard had to come up with a belief system. As one example of what he came up with: apparently, we humans are all originally from another planet, and have been exiled here by the galactic overlord Xenu. I'm not making this up.



#3606: — 06/19  at  08:01 PM
Hmmm... So, basically, Scientology is a belief in the world according to the second Highlander movie...? Although I think the overlord had a different name. That movie sucked! It is also a pretty lame thing to base a religion on.

Then again, I guess it's no more lame than the other religions out there (that cat worship thing to the contrary, of course).



's avatar #3607: PZ Myers — 06/19  at  08:28 PM
I don't know about that...scientology is pretty lame.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris



's avatar #3613: Ben — 06/20  at  05:04 AM
Religion, tax-dodge. Tax-dodge, religion. Is there a difference?

"The great trouble is that the preachers get the children from six to seven years of age and then it is almost impossible to do anything with them." --Thomas Edison.



Trackback: discount zidovudine Tracked on: Horst Hemke (64.34.166.88) at 2005 11 10 16:20:24
Worshippers at the sec...



Page 1 of 1 pages

Next entry: "...in the light of evolution."

Previous entry: Creationist lies in the Pioneer Press

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college