The Wedgie Document - PZ Myers Weaves Bizarre Defense of Militant Atheism

And another snipped of the atheist game plan is revealed or, rather, reiterated.

The contents of “The Wedgie” Document continues to grow as atheists reveal their ongoing attempts to push their particular concepts of atheism into culture, politics and the public school classroom in the guise of “science.”

This time PZ Myers reveals quite a bit of his own thought processes and conclusions about “religion” (whatever that means). Meanwhile he alerts us to his vision of a future in which “religion” is “completely out of the way” and in which he and his fellow atheists become the arbiters of evolution premised upon their “secular motives.”[1] In writing a response to an article by Karen Armstrong PZ Myers notes,

she thinks it is a new and brilliant idea to just keep going to church and accepting Jesus into your heart. It's not.

Say what you will about Myers yet, one thing is for certain; he is refreshingly open and makes it so that there are no lines between which to read.

As Karen Armstrong’s article was parsed into section so is PZ Myers’. In the response to the “God Is Dead” section Myers notes that Friedrich Nietzsche claimed that,

There is no central defining source of absolute truth, and we human beings have to rebuild our values around something new, other than this notion of a celestial monarch (he personally thought the new value was a “will to power”, individual ambition and aspiration). That's still true.

Indeed, Friedrich Nietzsche understood that the death of God would lead to the deification of man as we shrug off the “celestial monarch” and replace Him with terrestrial monarchs; as the Bible states it:

Why do the nations rage, and the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, “Let us break Their bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords from us” (Psalm 2:1-3).

As Nietzsche stated it, “Must we ourselves not become gods…?” in that we would concoct, by necessity secular, “festivals of atonement…what sacred games shall we have to invent?” In this regard it may be of interest to note that professor of philosophy Daniel Dennett claims that the atheist Joseph Stalin was, in reality, a theist because he believed in “a god whose will determined what right and wrong was. And he was sure of the existence of this god, and the god’s name was Stalin.”
Thus, not only can atrocities committed by atheists on the premise of atheism not be charged to “atheism” but they are the fault of theism. Also, by this “logic” all atheists are theists. Since in the most secular and bloodiest century in human history we replaced the celestial monarch with the terrestrial monarchs atheists became theists and “religion” is still to blame what that which was committed by atheist with atheism as their premise.

As almost a side note I would like to note that PZ Myers wrote, as per the manner in which Karen Armstrong made her case,

God is inadequate. To defend religion, people have to borrow the authority of science

This is in reference to Armstrong’s statement,

Homo sapiens is also Homo religiosus. As soon as we became recognizably human, men and women started to create religions. We are meaning-seeking creatures…Theological ideas come and go, but the quest for meaning continues.

Ok, so God is inadequate because people have to borrow the authority of science. So, how should people defend “religion”? Perhaps via philosophical discourse. But then we would be told that God is inadequate since to defend religion, people have to borrow the authority of philosophy. Perhaps via history. But then we would be told that God is inadequate since to defend religion, people have to borrow the authority of historical research. Perhaps via sense perception. But then we would be told that God is inadequate since to defend religion, people have to borrow the authority of the senses. Obviously, Myers has a definition in mind of science as atheism and so any appeal to science with regards to theism is verboden. In fact, when asked “What’s most important to you: advancing atheism or advancing the public understanding of science – or are they kind of one in the same for you?” He answered, “They are inseparable.”

In this light note that Myers had occasion to debate Dr. Angus Menuge (Ph.D in Philosophy with internal minor in logic and external minor in computer science and cognitive psychology) at Concordia University Wisconsin, on the topic “Does Neuroscience Leave Room for God?” Part of Dr. Menuge’s review of the debate states (his slides are found here):

Wishing to expose the way Methodological Materialism can be held indefinitely, no matter what the evidence, I challenged Myers to define what could convince him that materialism was false, pointing out that if all materialist explanations were working or very promising, I could be persuaded that theism was false. He dodged the question saying it was too hypothetical. I did not get the impression that he has seriously considered the question of what it would be like to learn materialism is false. How, then, can he claim that the materialism of science is purely methodological, which implies it could be dropped if it fails to work in some areas?

As per Armstrong, Myers goes on to write,

I'm always flattered by this argument that we need to define humans as a species by their religious beliefs, because I don't have them…which means I get to claim that I, and my fellow atheists, are a new species. Let us go forth, my fellow Homo smartiepantsius, and take over the hominid niche. [ellipses in original]

Keep this we versus they and particularly this we are superior to them—more evolvedier than thou—mentality in mind as it will come into play below. As for the statement about “Homo religiosus” PZ Myers notes,

This is, of course, complete nonsense…The difference between us isn't at all biological, but simply that some of us recognize that “god” is a piss-poor answer to any meaningful question, and we've moved on to looking for that meaning and pattern in more productive ways.

This is stunning coming from an atheist for whom the answer to any meaningful question is, ultimately, “It’s just there and that’s all!...it just is…it just happened…it just happened to have happened…what a coincidence…by chance…by luck…time, space and matter can do anything…given enough time…” Etc., etc., etc.

As regards “The Wedgie” Document; we now come to the most relevant portion of PZ Myers remarks:

We often get labeled “militant atheists”. It's a joke. Militant atheists would be the type who argue that we should charge in and deconvert populations at the point of a sword — we don't (well, maybe Hitchens leans that way, a little bit). We need modern societies to evolve away from religion, and that means education, local adoption and integration of secular motives into existing institutions, and gradually shift to a rational foundation in a way that doesn't destroy the existing, essential superstructure.

No, PZ and his fellows are not “militant atheists”; they ONLY want to establish themselves as arbiters of evolution via unnatural selection in order to “evolve away from religion” premised upon their “secular motives”—that is all. Now, when did Myers have bequeathed upon him the dogmatically infallible authority to speak for all atheists? Particularly, all “militant atheists,” in order to declare that 1) militant atheism does not amount to charging in and deconverting populations at the point of a sword and that 2) “we don't” want to do that. How does he know and why does he define militant atheism as such?

What we find is that PZ Myers concept of defeating “religion” is tantamount to a traditional Communist tactic: not a full frontal attack but a push and backing away, another push and a backing away, etc. In this way the push is not perceived as such a danger that it insights increased religious zealotry but since the push is followed by backing away it is all but ignored. In this way the tactic is like waves that eat away at a beach front little by little: not a tsunami which comes in and sweeps the beach away at once but one little wave followed by the next which each, in turn, eat away a little piece, a little part, ever advancing yet, virtually imperceptible. From this comes the ridicule, both inside and outside of the church, which states, “You are just paranoid…Oh yeah, Christians in America are persecuted, please!” Etc., etc., etc. In 1945 AD the Trotskyite, Denzil Dean Harber aka Paul Dixon, wrote “Religion in the Soviet Union” which was first published in The Workers International News (see here). Therein he noted the “The Left zig-zag of the bureaucracy was inevitably followed by a turn to the right”—push and back away, push and back away…

I thought to note that while surely stated in a tongue in cheek manner, he is mistaken about Christopher Hitchens. During the Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens meme swapping session known as “The Four Horsemen” (which I reviewed here) there came a point at which the adult beverages were taking their expected effects and Dawkins, Dennett and Harris were basically left attempting to figure out what on Earth Hitchens was talking about. With regards to the doing away of religion and religious belief, Hitchens stated,

No, I wouldn't say in such a case that one didn't wish to be without it, that we'd have lost something interesting to argue with.

Reading through the triple negative “wouldn't…didn't…without” he does not want it done away with since it would rob him of “something interesting to argue with”—and, of course, the source of his financial income. Richard Dawkins states,

…it sounds as though you don't want it to be eradicated, because you want something to argue against, and something to sharpen your wits on.

Consider three separate responses together, as Hitchens states:

Yes, I think that is, in fact, what I …

Well, look, you don't accept my - or you don't like my - answer, but I think the question should be, is going to be, asked of us. It was asked of me today actually, again on the TV: "Do you wish no one was going to church this morning in the United States?"

Well, I've given mine, Richard's disagreed. Well, the answer I gave this morning was "I think people would be much better off without false consolation, and I don't want them trying to inflict their beliefs on me. They'd be doing themselves and me a favour if they gave it up. So, perhaps in that sense, I contradict myself, I mean I wish they would stop it, but then I would be left with no one to argue with. [ellipses in original]

This leads Dawkins and Harris to state,

Dawkins: (laughs) Well, I just don't …!

Harris: But, you have many other subjects! [ellipses in original]

And so Hitchens responds,

And I certainly didn't say that I thought if they'd only listen to me, they would stop going. Okay, so there are two questions here. So that was my very experimental answer, but I'd love to hear … would you like to say that you look forward to a world where no one had any faith in the supernatural? [ellipses in original]

At this point they, wisely, change the subject in an yeah, alrighty then, have another drink there buddy sort of way.

That was more of an amusing aside than anything else. Of more substance is that Karen Armstrong wrote,

In claiming that God is the source of all human cruelty, Hitchens and Dawkins…

Let us stop here as PZ Myers took exception to this point and offers a challenge,

Look at that first clause. Has either Dawkins or Hitchens, or any other prominent atheist, ever claimed that? It's so exhausting to watch yet another apologist beating a dead strawman. Dismissed.

I would imagine that the qualifier which is being challenged is “all.” While Armstrong’s is a fallacious overstatement let us go on and consider whether Dawkins, in particular, ever claimed that:

Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition (religious riots between Hindus and Muslims where more than a million people were massacred), no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as “Christ-killers”, no Northern Ireland “troubles”, no “honour killings”, no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money (“God wants you to give till it hurts”). Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it.

This is about as close to “all” as you can get.

When PZ Myers states that “we New Atheists” (speaking dogmatically for all New Atheists) want religion to get completely out of our way it was actually premised on a faulty allusion. Armstrong wrote,

The Bible and the Koran may have prohibited usury, but over the centuries Jews, Christians, and Muslims all found ways of getting around this restriction and produced thriving economies.

Thus, since error begets error; Myers accepts this premise and writes,

What she is describing is the fact that Christianity has willingly retreated and rationalized to tolerate economic realities…All we New Atheists want is for religion to bend some more and get completely out of our way.

That “we New Atheists” want religion to get completely out of our way is a statement which still stands. Yet, I wanted to note that both Armstrong and Myers are in error in that they are not considering historical or grammatical context. The prohibition against usury, as a litigious point, is found within the law of the nation of Israel of millennia ago; relevant to the Jews of that time and place according to the, note the chronological language, “Old” Testament. Thus, Jews of later times and places as well as Christians did not have to “getting around” a law which no longer pertained to them. Lacking to make this most simple distinction between “Old” and “New” leads very many people, atheists and theists, to commit very many hermeneutical and doctrinal errors.

From the I’m sure that was supposed to mean something files comes this statement by Myers,

I've always been impressed, myself, at the incredible amount of work people put into religion — it's like watching hamsters in a wheel, running, running, running and getting absolutely nowhere. I would not accuse the devout of being lazy…I might argue that productive hard work and religion are mutually exclusive.

That this is poppycock is evidenced by the history of “religion” which is the history of humankind, the history which brought PZ Myers to live in a country which has always been overwhelmingly religious and prosperous, a world power, freedom loving (premised upon our “Creator…nature’s God” giving us that freedom—as per the Declaration of Independence), etc.

Myers writes that “Armstrong and I agree on something. She says yes, I say yes. Well, except for some nuances…” in reference to a segment entitled, “God Is Bad for Women” in which Armstrong writes,

It is unfortunately true that none of the major world religions has been good for women. Even when a tradition began positively for women (as in Christianity and Islam), within a few generations men dragged it back to the old patriarchy. But this is changing…

Note the disconnect; the fallacious charge to which Armstrong is responding is that it is “God” who “Is Bad for Women” yet, she (with Myers following along) respond to whether “the major world religions” have been “good for women.” Thus, while “a tradition” may have began positively for women it was “men” who “dragged it back.”
Is God bad for women? No, not the true God. Genesis 1: 27-28 states that God created both males and females in His image and blessed them (Biblical Women may be of interest).
Is religion bad for women? This is simply too generic but if we want to consider the suppression of women under the guise of “religion” then yes, sure—add this to the very many faults which make “religion” the corruption of a relationship with God that it is. By the way, I keep quoting “religion” as according to the Bible the New Testament the only “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27).

Now we come to the point I told you to keep in mind with regards to we versus they and we are superior to them as PZ Myers writes,

…almost all religions rely on a separation of the world into “us”, the tribe, the chosen, the people of the one true god, and the “other”, the enemy, the servants of the dark ones…

In that case, Myers and his New Atheists are religious. Recall, his reference to Homo smartiepantsius this is in opposition of religious people of whom he states that “most are fuzzy thinkers” and that “another reason why religion is bad for people and for nations: it turns good brains to mush.” PZ Myers relies on a separation of the world into “us”, the advanced, the evolved, the enlightened people of “science,” and the “other”, the enemy, the fuzzy thinkers, the mush brained, the “religious.” This is why he as his, the “we” to whom he refers, are the arbiters of evolution and will bring about a new atheist world order.

Following on his “us” versus “other” mentality, Myers more directly identified the players in the conflict. Again, it is “I” versus “religion”:

I consider religion the enemy of science because it short-circuits critical thought and gives believers an escape hatch to superstition. As long as religion teaches that the answers to real world issues can be found in revelation and authority and the interpretation of holy texts, belief is inimical to scientific thinking.

Of course, this is an ahistorical myth if for no other reason, of which there are many, that the “science” upon which he claims to rely on his particular, and peculiar, worldview (which includes something coming from nothing, life from non-life, etc.) was intelligently designed by theists who established methods and scientific fields of study in order to 1) ascertain how God created and 2) how the rational creation of a rational God functioned.

Overall and as per usual, PZ Myers in exiting, emotive, taunting and displays his super-superiority complex quite proudly yet his substance is lacking and only appealing to well-within-the-box-atheist-group-think.

[1] PZ Myers, “Karen Armstrong Weaves Bizarre Defense of Religion,” AlterNet, October 25, 2009