How Sad, Indeed

most Christians don’t realize the whole “Lord’s name in vain” thing has little to do with cussing…and a lot to do with not using God to advance your own agenda, or for personal gain.

I like what’s said here though.
Whatever our titles…how are we living in them?

I’m glad to see that others were a bit uneasy about that post. I remember once when a neighborhood priest died, and two of my atheist friends were talking about it. One said something similar to what PZ said about the man wasting his life. My other atheist friend said that the man probably lived a wonderful life, because he believed he was doing good (and he probably was doing good) and he died happy, believing he would be with God soon.

If the pursuit of happiness is the most important aspect of life, many believers seem to be winning the game. And I applaud that. I just sometimes wish they’d realize that we godless folks can be happy, too.

Although I check in with Pharyngula daily and often like what’s posted there, PZ can be a little, um, caustic at times. (Some of the comments are worse yet.) I regret that, because, like everyone, Christians are motivated first by emotions. (In fact, there’s probably no such thing as a motivation that’s not emotional. Even the drive to wield reason starts with an emotional attachment to reason.) First impressions are always emotional. If the first impression comes of a slap across the cheek, the most overwhelmingly potent reasoning can follow with no positive effect whatsoever.

I have to disagree. I also found PZ’s tone to be a little harsh, but I don’t fault him for saying that the man wasted his life. The objections seem to be that PZ didn’t really know the man and therefore is unable to make a fair judgment about how the man spent his life. The other objection seems to be that since the man spent his life doing something he felt was important, then everything works out in the end and we shouldn’t criticize his profession.

I don’t think that either of these points are valid. First, just because we don’t know someone personally doesn’t mean we cannot make judgment about them. We do this by looking at their actions: what they have done with their life. I’ve never met Ben Stein, but I’d be perfectly willing to make a judgment about his character.

Second, just because he was a good man who wasn’t a simonist or a power-hungry theocrat doesn’t mean that he didn’t waste his life. He may have been sincere in his belief, and he may have done good works because of his belief, but that doesn’t mean his beliefs were real. There may be some zoologist out there who has become convinced that Bigfoot is real. He dedicates his life to searching for Bigfoot. He raises money to build laboratories to study hair and feces he collects which he thinks may belong to Bigfoot. He may travel to schools to talk about zoology and how it shows there must be a Bigfoot out there. But none of that means there is a Bigfoot. When that man dies, it won’t matter how sincere or nice he was. He will still have wasted his life searching for and believing in something for which is there is no evidence.

Is it sad that this man (the priest) died? Yes. I feel sorry for his family who must be missing him. But just because he has died doesn’t mean one’s evaluation of his character should change. If someone asked me if I felt he had wasted his life, I would say yes, simply because he spent it promoting blind credulity.

Change the descriptors, and PZ’s was a Ray Comfort post, through and through:

“Sam Smith has died. I didn’t know him, or even know about him, until his obituary was sent to me, but it’s an utterly tragic life story. He was an atheist — there’s a waste of a life right there — and his death was ironic and futile. It’s a shame. Smith might have been a wonderful fellow, but all we strangers know about him is that he was “committed to atheist causes” — that he had dedicated his life to a lie.”

People might chime in and say ‘well, PZ is just being PZ.’ PZ might come here and post something defensive. And before that happens, and people talk about how many times the other side pulls stuff like this, and worse (think those people who picket military funerals with hate speech)… we have to remember something.

Complaining about this doesn’t mean we’re concern trolls. It doesn’t make us fr*mers. It doesn’t mean we want PZ to shut up, or roll over, or lose his tough edge or his unique voice.

It doesn’t mean we can or will be able to do anything to make PZ change. All we’ve got is this:

To PZ, this changes how I see you. You don’t care about that, and you might say ‘fuck you very much’ as a result, and all I say to that is “you first, buddy, and sideways.” I’m not offended by language. I’m not offended by your post, just frustrated.

PZ’s posted in the past that if religious people are embarrassed by the words of their co-religionists, they should speak up, and loudly, against them. I’d hope that PZ’s “brother’s keeper” kind of challenge extends to co-atheists, but I don’t expect that PZ would see us being anything more than ‘concern trolls’, and he’ll blow us off. I hope he doesn’t hold a double-standard here, but I suspect he’s just as human as the religionists he decries.

As I’ve said before, remember my words to the wise against elevating any atheist speaker into a hero, or a symbol, or a prominence. Humans are potential assholes. One thing religion got right was having their main prophets be dead, so they can’t do anything embarrassing.

To others reading PZ, there are people, including atheists and people like Kate who are feeling a bad taste in their mouth from the word atheist, who say “yo, that shit ain’t cool.” And that’s all that needs to be said.

And now that I’ve used up my profanity quota for the morning, I’ll end.

I agree, that was one of those occasional pointless-and-way-over-the-top Pharyngula posts that make me cringe.

I see this attitude coming from people who were never religious (or at least not since childhood) and simply cannot understand the substantial positives that come from living a religious life. This is exactly why I feel that I and others who have been in both worlds (theist and atheist) have a lot to contribute in terms of encouraging coexistence and cooperation where it can be productive.

I agree with Dark.

I don’t think PZ is really asserting that the man’s whole life is a waste, I think he’s making the point that it’s sad that the only things the obituary writer could think of to say about this man is what he did to spread religion.

I had a priest that I loved and respected, and I’m convinced that his obituary would mention the counseling he gave to families, and the way he drew non-Catholics to our youth group, surely keeping some students out of the trouble they might be otherwise getting into; they would mention his work with local charities, the visits to prisons and nursing homes, etc.

An obituary is supposed to focus on the best of what someone is. We can probably assume that the obituary’s author was coming at this from a different point of view, and there was more to the mans’ life than this– but if what the obit mentioned really was, from our point of view, the best that this man has accomplished with his life, then his life truly was a waste, and worse.

Hey…we never know what’s going on. What if he was saying, “Jesus” as in “Jesus F$%king Christ this HURTS!”

What will make your life not have been a waste?

If you haven’t “wasted” much of your time believing in an incorrect belief, is that all it will take? Will it have therefore been meaningful, useful, purposeful, consequential, having a point, productive, worthwhile, or any of the other adjectives that make us feel better?

Or could you “waste” your life believing in a correct belief? Does what happens in your head matter? All that is lost to entropy when your brain finally cools off. So would it be the things you did in life that would make it not have been a waste? How big a thing does it take for you to have been a person who “mattered” in the world? If you haven’t founded an orphanage or saved 435 lives or discovered a cure for a disease or or raised 100 million dollars for charity or liberated a people or written an uplifting book or composed a magnificent symphony or painted an astonishing painting or any other impressive thing that will get you more than one half inch of print in an obituary, then was your life a waste?

What if all the good you did will never be known, even to you, so it can’t be reported in your obituary? What if the good consequences of your actions were so subtle that you could not see them, or they happened later when you were far away?

What if all you did in your life was once in a while you:
smiled when you could have sneered, said a kind word when you could have said a sarcastic one, put a hand on their shoulder when you could have folded your arms, looked in their eyes when you could have looked down your nose, said “keep trying” when you could have said “give up,” put it in the trash when you could have tossed it on the ground, let them in when you could have cut them off, and held the door open when you could have rushed on through?

What if all those millions of little things you did made others a tiny bit more likely to do the same things for yet others? Where and when would your very subtle good influence stop, even though you and no one else could never know about it?

Regardless of what you believed, regardless of whether anyone ever knew, regardless of your obituary, would your life have been a waste?

Well said, Hemant. Life is just too complex to weigh it in this manner. Believing in Jesus, and dedicating your life to the faith that claims him, is hardly the worst thing someone can do.

Depending on the severity and suddenness of one’s passing, I bet “Jesus Christ!” being one’s last words is probably not uncommon.

I agree with mumbochick on this one. It’s all about inflection.

Rev. Real said,

That’s why I don’t associate myself with the label “atheist” which describes what I don’t believe in but rather “realist” which describes what I do believe in

Of course I agree, but when you do this, you are committing the same error that Christians make when they say “atheists have as much faith as Christians.” It’s only a true statement if your underlying beliefs about atheism are right. Of course, you believe you’re right, but how tactful is it to describe yourself in a way that dismisses the other person’s worldview?

I suppose someone who is thorougly convinced that his political plan is the best one for their country could just say “I’m not a Democrat or Republican or whatever, I simply endorse the “Correct Plan for America’s Future.”

“Atheist” is descriptive, while “realist” is a petulant insult to all the others who obviously seek to claim the same title.

If a person dedicated his life to the worship of a rock he found in a field, and made that the center of his existence, and declared himself a professional rock-worshipper, we’d have no problem recognizing him as a loon who could do far more productive things with his life. In fact, if we really wanted to be harsh, it would be to say the contrary, and dismiss him as accomplishing the best he possibly could with his obvious mental defect. If he was doing good work elsewhere, if he helped little old ladies across the street and helped children make paper dolls, that would be nice, but it wouldn’t change the fact that he could be a much greater agent of good if he’d abandon the silly, wasteful rock.

Yet somehow, even atheists in this culture have been conditioned to excuse people, even good people, if they promote bogus faith healing and the powerlessness of prayer. Oh, no, he wasn’t wasting his time…he was sincere and trying so hard to be nice. Nope, sorry. He may have been a good man overall, but he was frittering away a good part of his life on something that was worse than worthless — that promotes belief in lies, that replaces hard work and evidence with pointless faith.

Death is also treated as a magic line beyond which criticism may not pass; it’s a handy rationalization to exempt a life of superstition from examination. I don’t accept it.

Oh, and don’t worry, I rarely mention the name of Jesus in either casual conversation or as profanity, so I’m very unlikely to die saying it. I’m kinda hoping to go out with the words, “I wonder what would happen if…” on my lips.

The Day of Prayer is not such a bad idea. The real problem is that xians don’t do it every day for long hours. The more time they spend praying, the less time they have for causing mischief.

Imagine how much better the U.S. would be if Republican congressmen and senators prayed rather than voted.

– Richard Wade. Some xian charities do try to do good works, but for many they waste much, even most, of their resources on evangelizing rather than helping. One can help people better by contributing to or working for secular aid organizations. Oh, I know there can be corruption there too.

As for most of us, we probably are not so inclined to give of ourselves. But someone once said to the effect: trying to be good is very difficult; it is already hard enough to just not do bad. I think that is a more reasonable goal for most.

This reminds me a little of the one about the 2 God Delusions. One written by Richard Dawkins, a reasonable and rational account written on controversial topics, and one written by a crazy devil worshipping hyaena. The account I read of PZ’s was a reasonable and rational one. Arguments like “PZ was just being PZ” or that they think “he’s always too negative” or should just “stick to science” or “he’s a vehemently militant atheist” (!! If there’s a softer spoken more considered, informed, or caring sounding atheist out there I don’t know them) are either non-arguments or bad ones at best. Also opening your house to those “needing” prayer is not a strong defence against criticism, nor are charitable acts as almost every human on earth engages in some level of charitable behaviour. If criticising people involved in the promulgation of delusion however much they may believe that they are doing good, is not fair game what is? Many of you have clearly drawn the line in the sand over criticising the dead (although I’m sure there are instances where you’ve each broken this rule), or perhaps PZ’s choice of words. It seems to me these don’t bear much weight whichever way you look at it. At the very least PZ’s post has made me think a little more about something I already think quite a lot about. And no, I’m not defending him because he can do that himself. This is more a comment on what I see as the paucity of strong argument in the face of a reasonably presented point of view.

A more appropriate response to the day of prayer would be “Let me go give blood.” Did you do that, PZ? Did you do anything helpful that day? Hmmm?

No, of course not. You just used profanity and dragged the atheist name further down in the mud.

Stick to science, leave the hard stuff (kindness) to others who are better at it.

Of course – kicking puppies. And who made more difference that day? The Christians who prayed and did nothing, you who said “fuck the day of prayer”, or me, the atheist who gave blood? Doesn’t take a scientist to figure that one out.

I prefer to “speak out” in a different way. By shocking people when they realize that a person can be both an atheist AND nice. I like jilting people out of their stereotypes, it’s fun. And which gets people to question things more – someone who yells and screams in their face, or someone who quietly challenges their stereotype of the “nasty atheist”? Someone who leads a GOOD life while simultaneously not believing in any god? From personal experience, I can tell you it’s the latter.

You think I’m not speaking out because I’m not yelling. Quite the contrary. And while you don’t say you speak for me…you are speaking for me. You’re in the limelight, the public view. And that makes me ill.

The jury’s still out on which is more effective, a frontal attack on religion’s absurdities or an alluring display of the kinder, gentler manner of atheists, and in what combination. Different occasions call for different means. Sometimes a slap in the face is necessary–a hard slap, mind you. I sympathize with Siamang’s take on this. But, I’m not dogmatic about any of this.

There is a long tradition of summing up the works and perhaps the meaning of one’s life in a public statement made just after someone has died. I realize that there is a lot of lying that goes on in eulogies, done for the family’s sake, but the truth exposes itself nonetheless. There is also a long tradition in myth of giving the moral of the story or just letting the hearer/reader conclude the moral on his own after the hero dies an untimely death.

When Daedalus fashioned wings of wax and feathers for himself and his son Icarus he was intending to escape exile in Crete. Before they set out, Daedalus warned Icarus not to fly to high near the Sun, or too low near the sea. As the story goes, Icarus as he flew got carried away by his emotions and forgot himself, and flew too near the Sun, with a tragic result. There is no need to disparage Icarus for his fault; just tell his tragic story, and let the truth speak for itself. Managing to find the words that can sum up a life, or some part of a life, in ways that are revealing, is the writer’s gift, and the poet’s gift. I think these sums, well done, will outlast all our wranglings.

Personally I do not want to die while doing something I love. I never understood why someone would want to cease to exist, in the middle of having a great time. I want to die while I’m doing something I hate doing, like my taxes. Or on Christmas, when my mother in law moves comes over to give me a big wet kiss…KILL ME THEN.

You think I’m not speaking out because I’m not yelling. Quite the contrary.

Amen, sister!

If the path to atheist acceptance requires combing obituary pages for easy marks who can’t argue back, count me out.

Let’s be forceful and loud against the real buffoons in the public eye. There’s plenty of them. We won’t run out.

Preach it, brother!

It’s possible to speak forcefully and fight the power, without being judgmental and dismissive of some guy who just died and never asked for your opinion anyway?

Like Karen, I think that PZ is a great communicator, but other times he appears tone deaf. Sometimes obnoxious is just obnoxious.

The problem I have with the post is, as Siamang and others have pointed out, he’s picking on a private person at a time when his family is obviously grieving. That’s pointless and it’s just in poor taste.

Yes, I can see why some people would be sensitive to that. But personally speaking, if I were a part of the grieving family, I would much rather have ten PZ Myerses posting their honest (not hateful) thoughts on their blogs rather than coming around with fake sympathies and prayer offers when they clearly know they don’t really care all that much.

Another thought I had was…. do we (Americans) not openly discuss our negative feelings toward the Middle Eastern culture and the the Muslim religion with no sensitivity toward the grieving families and disrupted lives there? Is it different when we’re so far removed and it’s not about us? Or is it different when we’re talking about people that don’t really matter? Or am I totally out of line again from the focus? The only reason I’m asking is because I often find myself doing the same thing… But it always looks worse when someone else does it. Go figure! 😕

Hypocrisy abounds
In the streets filled with lies
Reaching for the pot of gold
Fighting for the prize

All too hollow greetings
Mechanical handshakes
Love – wrapped in ambiguity
Numbness, luke-warmness

Helping hand reaching out
to touch the self-pride
Feeding the hungry
to feed own self-doubt

Every corner, every turn
Humanity so real
Lost in blurred reflections
In the dream of SELF….self…self

bernarda, why are you telling me this?

– Richard Wade. Some xian charities do try to do good works, but for many they waste much, even most, of their resources on evangelizing rather than helping. One can help people better by contributing to or working for secular aid organizations. Oh, I know there can be corruption there too.

I think you meant to address this to someone else. 🙂

I also see that there are atheists who seem to be humor-challenged. PZ has a dry sense of humor that maybe they don’t get. From personal experience, I have noticed that this seems more prevalent among people a generation or so after mine. Maybe that is a result of too much PC in the last 20 years.

Another site on charities. (really, only one link at a time is too restrictive, most sites allow two)

http://www.charitywatch.org/

Does anyone else find it amusing that so many people here are arguing about what PZ “really meant” as if a) he’s the author of the Bible or something and b) he is not a good enough of a writer to express what he really means without help? :-/