P. Z. Myers has angered millions with his tirades against religion posted on his popular science blog, Pharyngula. But as Jessica Marshall finds out, the scourge of creationists turns out to be a mild-mannered man from Minnesota
PAUL ZACHARY MYERS drinks his daily coffee at the Common Cup, whose mission is posted in a handwritten sign above its stone fireplace: "The purpose of Common Cup is to provide a Christian environment and a welcoming place for the local and campus communities to come together."
"I write some of my most subversive screeds against religion sitting there," Myers says.
The coffee house is in Morris, Minnesota, roughly halfway between Minneapolis and Fargo, North Dakota. Surrounded by soybean fields and grain silos, the politically conservative town of 5000 is served by at least 14 churches. It is from this God-fearing outpost that Myers, who trained as a biologist, writes Pharyngula, one of the most widely read science blogs on the web - and a pointedly unchristian one at that.
In Pharyngula, Myers campaigns for evolutionary science, takes aim at creationists and proselytises for atheism while ridiculing religious beliefs with a sharp virtual tongue. In one blog post, for example, he wrote, "There are days when it is agony to read the news, because people are so goddamned stupid... And nothing makes them stupider than religion."
In person Myers says, "Religion in this country is protected by a wall of silence. You cannot argue with religion. As an atheist I try to teach people that you don't have to respect religious differences or ideas. This is something that I would like to get across to people: disrespecting ideas is a good thing."
Myers practices what he preaches. In perhaps his most notorious stunt, he pierced a Catholic Eucharist wafer with a rusty nail and threw it in the trash, along with some coffee grounds, a banana peel, a few pages each of the Koran and Richard Dawkins's atheist manifesto, The God Delusion, just to show he had no reverence for his own doctrine, either. Myers commenced "The Great Desecration", as he called it, in support of a college student at the University of Central Florida who "stole" a consecrated communion wafer, which devout Catholics believe is the actual body of Christ, from a mass. For this, the student was met with threats and his actions were compared by some to kidnapping.
He pierced a Catholic Eucharist wafer with a rusty nail and threw it in the trash
Myers view is that a consecrated wafer is "just a cracker". His Great Desecration inspired more than 2300 blog comments in 20 hours and 15,000 hate messages. Myers was surprised by the reaction but shrugs off such criticism. "There have been a few cases when people have sent me very explicit descriptions of what they're going to do to me. That's a little 'ick'. But for the most part, these are people blustering on the internet. It's hard to take them too seriously."
Myers's inflammatory acts and language would lead one to suspect him of being overtly aggressive, yet in person he is soft spoken and his views seem rather measured. While he affirms the right of atheists not to respect religious differences, he adds, "We don't want that to lead to the point where you can say, 'You don't have to respect people being different at all.' That isn't true. I think diversity is a great thing. Disrespect for ideas, great. Disrespect for people, not so great."
Myers grew up in the 1960s, when coverage of the space programme was a regular part of the evening news. But in his adolescence he decided that biology was more interesting and discarded his model rockets in favour of dissecting road kill near his home in Kent, a distant suburb of Seattle. He was a part of the Scandinavian Lutheran community there: "Church was a matter of going to Sunday school and having a good time with your friends. Our Sunday school teacher was this nice, wonderful woman who I really liked, and we memorised Bible verses." But when it was time for confirmation class and the teacher laid out the core beliefs of the church, young Myers balked. The Bible verses he had memorised in Sunday school rang hollow compared to what he'd learned from the road kill. "That's real. You can get out there and look at these things and you can start seeing the relationship between the dead porcupine and the dead otter you found," he recalls, "The biology books go into specifics. They talk about physical reality - stuff you can go out and test yourself. That's a big difference from what you do in church."
Today Myers lives in a peeling white house across the street from the University of Minnesota Morris. His living room appears to do triple duty as lounge, office and exercise studio. His readers send him Darwin figures, fossils and hand-knitted cephalopods, which clutter a side table. A beach-ball-sized, pink stuffed octopus occupies one seat of a couch. Cephalopods - squid and octopuses - are a pet interest, and he posts a picture of one every Friday on his blog. Pharyngula (tag line: "Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal") grew out of a class he taught in the early days of the blogosphere. He began using the course software to blog after the semester was over. "People liked it," he says. "The blog just turned into this huge trumpet."
- Subscribe to New Scientist and you'll get:
- New Scientist magazine delivered to your door
- Unlimited access to all New Scientist online content -
a benefit only available to subscribers - Great savings from the normal price
- Subscribe now!
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
P.Z. Myers has the guts to speak his mind and take issue with a set of traditional superstitions that have gotten a free ride for millennia.
And he was right about his criticism of that New Scientist cover that proclaimed, "Darwin was Wrong" too: anyone with any sense could plainly see it was crafted to tickle the controversy bone, which New Scientist never newglects as a potential for boosting circulation.
Oh, and it is "almost" the best blog...if it weren't for that cheezy ScienceBlogs site that embarked on a Great Plan a little over a year ago to "improve" it, rendering it nearly useless.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
When someone insults political beliefs, that's considered fair-game. All Myers does is remove the special (undeserved) privileges granted to religious beliefs.
The media is happy to mock someone who pretends to be a crewperson on the Starship Enterprise, but tiptoes around even more absurd religious fantasies
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
I'm an evangelical christian with a Ph.D. in geophysics. I don't find Myers particularily offensive. People can speak their mind. I agree with some of his comments. The eucharist is "just a cracker". Catholocism has many with medieval ideas superstitions and is sycretistic with some Roman and medieval concepts thrown in with Christain ideas.
Myers is however, quite short sighted and like a lot of fanatics religious, agniostic, atheist and otherwise seems to be more interested in proclaiming his own ideas rather than learning. In other words he is more of a talker than a listener.
My suggestion to such people is why not try reading the Gospel and see what it is saying or reading some of the Koran or the Upanishads to see what it is about? How about reading a book on atheism or a book on philosophy or a book on different world views? Why not try reading a book about evolution before making up your mind? At the very least make an informed decision. Trying reading about special and general relativity to see what it is all about.
I have found this very helpful as it has greatly increased my knowledge and it has very much helped me to understand where other people are coming from.
" why not try reading the Gospel and see what it is saying"
I agree totally, I read the Gospels. I think if more people read them, there would be a lot more Atheists.
Agreed. A cursory read of the gospels will dispel any notion that they are meaningful except to tribal Jewish peoples. In addition, a full read of both the Jewish texts and the New Testament will absolutely prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that religionists are deluded, and/or are charlatans and that their deity is purely a myth.
"My suggestion to such people is why not try reading the Gospel and see what it is saying or reading some of the Koran or the Upanishads to see what it is about?"
When a book has a story about a snake that talks and convinces the only woman on earth to eat some fruit, I think it's pretty safe to call that book fiction.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
Kemanoral: Dr.John did not claim that atheists never read the gospel. Of course immoral and wrong things happen in the bible because it is a record of human history! Are you claiming that scientists don't have faith?! I bet there are many things in the science text books that you believe- but have never seen direct evidence for yourself.
"My suggestion to such people is why not try reading the Gospel and see what it is saying"
Why is it that Christians think atheists aren't familiar with the Bible? Reading the Bible cover to cover three times showed me that Yahweh and Jesus were, shall I say, problematic and their existence very iffy. (I also discovered that Yahweh is a petulant bully with the emotional maturity of a spoiled five year old.)
Many atheists, including PZ Myers and me, are ex-Christians. We became atheists when we examined Christianity in particular and the concept of deities in general. We've investigated religion. To paraphrase Daniel 5:27, "god has been weighed on the scales and found wanting."
You mean twist Daniel 5:27 into something it did not say. That is vastly different the paraphrasing. I have 2 sons today that prove God is real. I have a sister who was healed of an incurable disease. I have a friend who had Hepatitis C till Jesus healed him of it. I have a daughter who can still hear my voice today because Jesus instantly healed her hearing. So when you say there is no God, my family is an affront to your sycophantic boast
Curiously enough an in depth read of the Old Testament reveals the existence (or not) of TWO distinct deities; Jehovah - all wrath, plagues and 'Thou shalt not worship any others before me' etc. and Yahweh who is all about peace tolerance and love. so either the God of the bible has a split personality disorder or the monotheistic religion isn't as mono as it like to think it is
Well, I am an atheist and I did read most of the Bible (half of the OT and all of the NT). While I used to respect religious beliefs, reading the Bible was an eyeopener for me as to the total barbarity of Christianity. God actually ordered his chosen people to slaughter entire cities in order to conquer the promised land, sparing only virgins to serve as sex-slaves for their new masters... anyone reading that and still worshipping such a God must be evil.
The NT is slightly better but not that much. I do not greatly admire a man who publicly disowns his family. Sounds like an ambitious fanatic to me, the type to speak passionately in public and at home beat his wife. Not to mention the wonderful ideas expressed by Paul on women and marriage...
Liza. Have you ever notice how nearly all religious texts, Judaism, Christianity and Islam reflective a particular masculine view of the world. It's almost as if the people who wrote them, told the stories from their position within society. That is, who is in charge. The Man. They're the only ones who are educated and permitted to govern. So the world according to the masculine becomes the prevailing religious text. The uncleanliness of women. The sin attached to women. The abhorrence of menstruation. Blaming women for man's sexual desires, telling them to cover up instead of adopting a civilized educated position of "it's my desires, I will control them and act with respect to 51% of the worlds population". God taking a dim view of a woman's hair. God's fascination with virginity. Women considered as chattels. Women required to obey the man, who is the automatic head of the house even if he's an idiot. This one is particularly prevalent in US and Australian fundamentalist christian sects.
Anyone would think the religious texts were written by men to reinforce their position of power in the world.
Religion, hand made, MAN made.
Excuse me Mr Evangelist, but could you please pull your head out of your bottom for just a minute. Of course to you the eucharist is just "a cracker" you're not a Catholic. And your mother's ashes are just ashes. Thankyou for summarising and dismissing my religion in one misspelt sentance.
I like what Myers has done: he's not hurting anyone, it's better than most contempory art and it opens honest discussion about religion. It would have been more meaningful if he had believed in transubstantiation, but you can't have everything. What I don't like is that here it seems to have turned into "i'm a mad fundie but at least i'm not a Catholic"
"Thankyou for summarising and dismissing my religion in one misspelt sentance."
The ironing is delicious.
Myers, in the article, was quoted as saying that, "... Our Sunday school teacher was this nice, wonderful woman who I really liked, and we memorised Bible verses."
It doesn't seem very likely that anyone who has memorised biblical verses has never read it so your "suggestion to such people is why not try reading the Gospel" seems somewhat irrelevant and dispensable. Much like most of the bible, in fact.
who says he didn't read up on the subject? I read up on several different beliefsystems, extinct, old and new. the more I learn about the different beliefsystems, the more I have become convinced that god (from whichever belief) is a creation of the human mind (and because of it, all the more dangerous too).
And yes, Because of all my reading I actually feel that no truly intelligent being can really believe in god. It baffles my mind, it truly does that someone like you, for example, with a Phd Would call yourself a christian. Obviously you must be intelligent, and I just can't see that you would really really believe that your god exists. Maybe you believe christianity has some good values and adhere to it for that reason, but do you REALLY believe your god exists? Honestly, I don't get it. ANd the more I read, the less it makes sense to me
"My suggestion to such people is why not try reading the Gospel and see what it is saying"
This, "let's all learn from each other," 'reasonable' approach has one major stumbling block. If the claims made in them are clearly not true, they have no value, except as some curious ancient literature - at which point you're much better off reading the Iliad, which has more literary value in five pages than in the whole of the Bible and the Koran put together.
These views are opposed, get it? The claims of religion are absurd, have no supporting evidence, and have got more and more subtle over the years as previously firmly held beliefs were demonstrated to be false - even to the satisfaction of the most fanatical believers. Myers's ears are open to any claims of supporting evidence for the *truth* of these claims. At which point he will examine those claims meticulously.
"Before making up your mind"
There-in lies the problem with your statement. Making up our mind should consist of facts, not silly fairy tale horror stories. "At the very least make an informed decision." Seriously, what is this drivel?
If 'making up your mind' consists of weighing crackpot tale's and 'the very least' choosing which one I want to 'believe' -- than no thanks.
Logically speaking, nobody would choose religion.
I have read the bible several times, cover to cover, and I am an atheist because of that. I am not unwilling to contemplate the existence of a spuernatural reality - I am open to religion, if you will - but I have a big issue with religious people.
I also have a big, fundamental problem with any claims that a "spiritual truth" is somehow more true than actual, observable facts. People who proclaim that they follow a higher truth than that are simply deluded.
I've often wondered why New Scientist spends so much page space on "creationists" if it hates them so much. I've read the entire Bible and never found the bit that says evolution is wrong; as a biochemist I've studied quite a bit of evolutionary theory and never found a rational explanation as to why it would require an absence of deity to work.
Yet we have regular coverage of this strange sport: On the one hand a group of Creationists uses pseudoscience to 'prove' that evolution is a myth, and on the other, a group of atheists use pseudoreligion to 'prove' that religion is false. Neither seems to have much in the way of interesting arguments, or much bearing on real science.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
I think we're pretty much a stupid species while half the world still believes in this god garbage. Maybe we'll evolve away from ridiculous supernatural fantasies one day. I guess I won't live long enough to see that happen though. *Sigh*
Less than half the world believes in god. Many religious people are of faiths that believe in enlightened individuals but not a god or gods.
Anyone who believes that 'the world still believes in this god garbage' is the ignorant one.
Have a nice day. :)
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
I'm pretty sure Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism all share at least one basic tenet: the existence of one or more than one divine being called 'god' or 'gods'.
How accurate of you, Mike. Just leave the word "half" out of the quote "half the world still believes in this god garbage" and you've misquoted me by half the world's population! I guess you're the ignorant one.
There are 2 billion Christians and 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. The global population is not much more than 6 billion. And there are hundreds of other religions in the world. You are a first rate dumbshit.
Those numbers are incredibly dubious overstatements. 4 out of 5 of my Muslim friends for instance don't believe in Allah, but can't publicly voice their beliefs for fear of violence. Question those who say they believed in God or Gods at all deeply and they'll probably admit they don't. I'd like to really ask Pope Benedict whether even he believes. I doubt he does.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
'It is meant to create a divide...'
I agree 100%. He's not looking to teach or reform, he just wants to bicker.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
"I agree 100%. He's not looking to teach or reform, he just wants to bicker." - Mike
Maybe he was hungry?
He should have held it for ransom.
Send em a crumb for identification.
"Our demands are that you send us a box of chocolate cookies or the wafer gets it."
Religion Is Culture
Wed Nov 25 20:39:13 GMT 2009 by Kemanorel
http://www.youtube.com/user/KemaTheAtheist
It's pathetic how little understanding of the atheist community people have here, especially the ones trying to put words into our mouths...
"So why don't these militant atheists attack the lack of realism in the religious experience by picketing burial ceromonies?"
You don't need to have religion for a burial. Secular ones are performed all the time, and I plan to have a secular burial. Grief is still a real thing for the living though. It makes no difference that we don't think a soul passes on. We're still saddened by the person leaving the world.
Question for you though: if you think they're going to a better place, why the hell do you cry at a burial? You should be happy, right?
"If it is meaningless then surely it is meaningless at all points?"
*sigh* This old talking point? Most atheists think there's plenty of meaning for all of this. We just don't need a deity to ascribe meaning to something, whether it is a burial, a marriage, a birth, or our lives.
"Stealing the communion bread is not a sensible method to remove a delusion."
Maybe not remove it, but judging from the reactions it did a FANTASTIC job showing just how delusional/insane religion makes people.
"It is meant to create a divide by breaking a significant religious and cultural taboo."
No. That's religion. Religion is intrinsically divisive, which is why you have commandments like "you shall have no other gods before me" and "you shall not worship graven images" (which is really funny because you see the dead guy on a stick all over the place).
It's also interesting to note that many people conflate the idea of some form of non-physical afterlife (the "soul", spirits, ghosts, etc) with the existence of a god, and therefore tie the two together through some form of religion.
I don't see any logical reason why the existence of some form of after-life existence must be predicated on there being a god. Or vice-versa for that matter. Surely the two concepts are, or at the very least admit the possibility of being, independent?
My view is that this combining of two apparently widely divergent ideas is all to do with the fear of death, and the fervent desire that most religious people seem to have to avoid it. In fact, the desire to avoid death seems rather irreligious in itself to me, since if you truly believed then should you not also wish to sit at the right hand of your god as soon as possible? Unfortunately religion seems full of these inconsistencies in rational thought and logic.
By the way, I also want to point out that I am also an atheist and, while I admit the possibility that there could be some sort of after-life existence, I don't actually believe this to be the case.
"...if you truly believed then should you not also wish to sit at the right hand of your god as soon as possible? Unfortunately religion seems full of these inconsistencies in rational thought and logic."
That statement makes a lot of sense if you assume that mortal life serves no purpose, which may well be believed in some religions, but certainly doesn't extend to all. Speaking as one who believes life to have a purpose, I find no inconsistancy in the example given.
I do find apparent inconsistencies in many other areas, be it religion, atheism, biochemistry, or anything else I've studied, but on closer inspection it seems that the prevailing theories in each of these areas only appear inconsistent from the outside.
My Evangelical xian mother refused to go to her twin brother's funeral and urged me not to go because it was a humanist ceremony in a forest and not a religious one in a cold, stuffy church.
A Protestant minister in Northern Ireland was severely censured by is church for going to the funeral of a Catholic priest he had befriended at Ecumenical discussions.
Look to the beam in your own eye first.
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
PRINT
SEND
