Jimmy Akin on the “science” of PZ Myers’ “cracker” plan
Jimmy Akin on the “science” of PZ Myers’ “cracker” plan (aka Myers’ proposed plan to procure some communion wafers, desecrate them, and post the results online):
...let’s suppose that [a dispassionate scientific demonstration of the falsity of Catholic belief regarding the Eucharist] 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.
Akin has also posted an MP3 from his radio show with a response to Myers’ actions. You can read Myers’ post that started the hullabaloo here. Note: Myers has since stated that his post was intended more as “satire and protest” than anything else.
Comments
Aaron
July 20, 2008 4:43pmThis Akin fellow is missing the point. I don’t think Myers’ intention was ever to debunk or expose the falsity of Catholicism. Myers would be one of the first to admit you can’t disprove religion or the existence of god (mostly because burden of proof lays with the claimant of a proposition), and most certainly not by crumbling up a cracker.
(Also, “desecrating” sounds much more inflammatory than it probably will end up being. It’s not like he’s going to pee on it or anything.)
What Myers is doing is more of a gesture of solidarity for this student in Florida who got death threats for taking his wafer home with him (for reasons that are still unclear to me)--death threats PZ Myers is now getting as well.
The real issue here, if you ask me, should be the violent and threatening behavior of these people who are supposedly offended. Never a better time, as a Christian, to ask yourself… WWJD?
Jason
July 21, 2008 9:51amIn this interview, Myers says he’ll “do something that shows this cracker has no power”. Which implies that his goal is to debunk Catholicism in some capacity.
If there are any Catholics out there, please feel free to correct me, but I’d think that any use or treatment of the Eucharist outside of its intended usage would be seen as desecration. And I think it’s safe to say that Myers doesn’t plan on using the Eucharist as intended.
As for WWJD… there’s no doubt that people responding with death threats is as far from a Christ-like example as you can get. Indeed, it seems to go against one of the fundamental ideas of the Eucharist, that being the vulnerability and sacrifice of Christ (as Akin mentions above).
And FWIW, I think the real issue here is, why does anyone—be they Christian, atheist, or whatever—think that “deliberately insulting the most deeply felt sensibilities of other human beings” (to use Akin’s terms) is ever a good way to try and prove the rightness and superiority of their claims?
Aaron
July 21, 2008 10:26amI don’t think you can extract his entire intention from that one quote. It’s pretty clear in Myers’ original post on his site that this is clearly more an act of solidarity for this kid in Florida who’s been a victim of character assassination, accused of “hate crime,” been called a “kidnapper,” and has received numerous DEATH threats, than any attempt to falsify the Eucharist itself.
There’s no mention at all in that original post, of debunking or invalidating Catholicism or the Eucharist. I imagine that bit in the interview you quoted was more of an afterthought on Myers’ part, than anything, and certainly not indicative of his overall intentions.
So to your question of “why insult deeply felt sensibilities to prove rightness,” again, I don’t think Myers is really attempting to prove any rightness or superiority. If he were I’d definitely agree this was the wrong way to go about something like that.
Jason
July 21, 2008 12:45pmSorry, but I just can’t buy that.
If you spend any time reading Myers’ blog, you’ll see that he has little but contempt for Christianity, and religion in general. He clearly views it as inferior, if not outright idiotic, and the same goes for anyone who believes it. For example, in Myers’ original post, he uses the following descriptions for religious folks: “goddamned stupid”, “crazy”, and “demented fuckwits”.
As such, I do believe that there is some kind of “superiority complex” going on here: He might not be trying to disprove the existence of God, but he does want to show how silly and pathetic Catholicism is in some way, and furthermore, he wants to rub their noses in it by doing very bad things to one of Catholicism’s holiest and most cherished objects and ceremonies.
Why else would he do this? This goes beyond a mere act of solidarity into completely different territory.
On a related note, I wonder what you might make of this:
“...what Myers is actually wanting to do is of a different order. He is going out of his way to procure, by deceit, within the confines of a church’s property, an object that Catholics do not share with nonbelievers. Period.
He is, in short, encouraging his readers to interfere with a particular people’s ability to practice their religion without interference within their own property boundaries.”
Aaron
July 21, 2008 2:00pmI won’t argue that Myers has boatloads of contempt for religion, he absolutely does. I just don’t think he’s attempting to disprove or falsify anything in this particular instance.
If Myers had come up with this idea all his own, and acted singularly, you could argue other motives, but this is clearly in reaction to this kid in Florida, and the ridiculousness and criminality of the reactions to what he did.
“...what Myers is actually wanting to do is of a different order. He is going out of his way to procure, by deceit, within the confines of a church’s property, an object that Catholics do not share with nonbelievers. Period.”
I listened to a conversation between a Father Loya and PZ Myers online over the weekend, and Myers made the point, and Father Loya agreed with him, that there are hundreds, possibly thousands of non-believing Catholics in churches across the country, who take communion on a weekly basis, who attend church out of habit or for purely social reasons. The church of course would rather that not the case, but there’s really no way to know the level of belief of every person as they pass through the line, and even if they could tell, the pastors are instructed to not cause a scene or disrupt the service, so they give the wafer anyway. So, I wouldn’t say “...Catholics don’t share this ritual with non-believers. Period.” is completely accurate.
Another thought; surely any holy presence the wafer may contain lays solely in the heart and mind of the recipient. So if a non-believer takes a wafer, in that case it really is still just a wafer, right?
Jason
July 21, 2008 6:41pmSo maybe Myers did start this whole thing in response to what happened in Florida. However, we seem to disagree on whether or not this has spiralled into something else. I say it has. He has nothing but contempt for Christians, and here’s an opportunity to stick it to them in a very real and pointed way. He doesn’t believe there’s anything special about the Eucharist, unlike Christians, and he’s going to prove it. So maybe proving Christian doctrine wrong isn’t his primary aim, but based on his comments and actions to date, I can’t see how it isn’t in there somewhere.
I listened to a conversation between a Father Loya and PZ Myers online over the weekend, and Myers made the point, and Father Loya agreed with him, that there are hundreds, possibly thousands of non-believing Catholics in churches across the country, who take communion on a weekly basis, who attend church out of habit or for purely social reasons. The church of course would rather that not the case, but there’s really no way to know the level of belief of every person as they pass through the line, and even if they could tell, the pastors are instructed to not cause a scene or disrupt the service, so they give the wafer anyway. So, I wouldn’t say “...Catholics don’t share this ritual with non-believers. Period.” is completely accurate.
True, there are many folks who take Communion when they shouldn’t, for various reasons. But that doesn’t mean that they should still do it. I fail to see how that reality lets Myers off the hook, especially considering his stated intentions towards the Eucharist, his desire to procure it through deceit, etc. Which, arguably, are far more offensive than the intent of the vast majority of people who take Communion when they shouldn’t.
Another thought; surely any holy presence the wafer may contain lays solely in the heart and mind of the recipient. So if a non-believer takes a wafer, in that case it really is still just a wafer, right?
Yes, but only if you subscribe to a very low and casual view of Communion. Traditional Christian doctrine holds to the exact opposite.
Traditional Christian doctrines holds that, during Communion, the bread and the wine are fundamentally changed. They are set apart by God and cease being mere bread and wine, and become something else. Now, as to what that “something else” actually is, there is some disagreement.
Some (e.g., Catholics) hold to a very strong and literal view (transubstantiation) which says that the bread and wine become the actual flesh and blood of Christ. Others hold to different, less stringent views (e.g., consubstantiation).
But in any case, there is the underlying belief that a real, objective change does occur. Furthermore, this change occurs as a divine act, an act of God’s grace. In other words, any “holy presence” contained within the wafer is there independently of what might exist within the recipient’s heart and mind—it’s there because God, and God alone, puts it there. (Indeed, it may very well be there in spite of what might exist within the recipient’s heart and mind.)
Put simply, if a non-believer participates in Communion, it’s no longer “just a wafer,” even for them.
Aaron
July 21, 2008 8:32pm“there are many folks who take Communion when they shouldn’t, for various reasons. But that doesn’t mean that they should still do it. I fail to see how that reality lets Myers off the hook”
Well, my point wasn’t at all that it lets Myers off the hook, I was just refuting your statement about “Catholics never letting non-believers participate in communion. Period.” That’s clearly not true, when non-believers participate on a weekly basis.
Myers has great disdain for religion, there’s no disputing that. He makes that quite clear on a near-daily basis. I just have to stand by my opinion that his disdain doesn’t color every single word he types, or action he takes. In this case, I just don’t see it as the over-arching point he’s trying to make.
I still wish all the outraged Catholics would turn half as much attention towards these threats of violence (a real threat, no matter what your stripe), as they’re turning towards trying to decipher and diffuse a professor who’s most likely going to stick a communion wafer in some water, and dissolve it.*
“Put simply, if a non-believer participates in Communion, it’s no longer “just a wafer,” even for them.”
I think this statement, and its inverse, are a perfect microcosm of the argument between our two points of view.
And heck, this certainly won’t be the first time a believer and a non-believer have had to agree to disagree. :)
A pleasure as always, sir.
(*I don’t know that that’s what he’s really going to do.)
Aaron
July 22, 2008 1:13pmAn update…
“Bill Donohue has once again issued a press release, urging all of his followers to harass my in-box. Once again, my email is rendered useless by a flood of idiots sending me bizarre tirades and links to Catholic fables and threats. There is a new change in tone: now lots of them are gloating that they’ve written to CAIR, and the Muslims are now going to come and blow up my house, ha ha! Thanks, Donohue, for reinforcing prejudice about Muslims.”
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/not_again.php
Jason
July 22, 2008 1:55pmSigh…