Terahertz

Unobjective Reporting

I don't normally read or write on articles from sources like the "National Catholic Register" but one got shared to me, so I was inclined to read it. The article is entitled "Face of the New Atheism" and documents an interview by Jeff Gardener with Dr. PZ Myers.

I had some good hopes for this article, after a fairly neutral introduction, however, on second reading I notice the bias slip in:

He moved from semi-celebrity among atheists and evolutionists to widespread notoriety when he blogged a tirade about the University of Central Florida student Webster Cook, who stole the Blessed Sacrament and held it hostage. [Emphasis added]

First misconception: Webster Cook was given the cracker in church, there was no sign on the wall saying "Thou shalt eat the cracker and removing uneaten crackers is theft." He chose to hold it in his mouth and walk out in protest of being assaulted by a member of the church. There was no theft involved.

The heavy bias becomes very obvious with this gem of a paragraph:

That Myers has the equivalent of a junior high school education in religion is glaring. He understands little about the history and function of the Catholic Church and even less about the place of the Eucharist in the lives of Catholics. When I told him that many have laid their lives on the line to protect the Blessed Sacrament, he recoiled in disbelief, saying, “Really? People really do that!?”

Myers likely understood the Eucharist and ceremony surrounding Communion prior to Cook's ordeal in Florida, it was the fact that people took the ceremony seriously enough to utter death threats against Cook that caught him by surprise. It seems ridiculous to think that people actually still believe that when a priest waves his hands over a cracker it becomes the flesh of a person who supposedly died nearly 2,000 years ago.

Gardener continues:

What, I asked, about the Church’s role in founding the first Western hospitals, universities, banks and even many breakthroughs in science? He interrupted me, irate and incredulous:

“No, people made those contributions to Western Civilization.”

That the Church was involved in the very foundations of our Western culture is, according to Myers, irrelevant. [Emphasis added]

The Church was involved in the same way that the feudal system was involved, it didn't necessarily promote the growth of knowledge, but existed at the same time as knowledge began to grow. We should question why, if the Church was so vital to Western culture, did the Church attack and defame many of the great thinkers from Galileo to Spinoza?

Gardener becomes confused that someone could not see the church as being a beacon of light and hope through European history:

As I talked with Myers I was struck by an irony: For a scientist whose job it is to observe cause and effect, he has a poor understanding of the cause, Catholicism, and its effects on world culture. He does not see Christianity as an elevating force in the world, but rather as a strange superstition — akin to banging a pot to scare away the moon.

Is Gardener suggesting that the belief that eating a cracker as form of cannibalism is wholly different than "banging a pot to scare away the moon"? Because I see more similarities than differences.

Gardener moves from the defensive to the offensive, attempting to paint a picture of the dark and scary atheist.

When discussing religious leaders like the Holy Father, Myers is insulting, dismissive and even bigoted — though he insists the demeaning ways he describes the Holy Father are legitimate criticism.

Myers seems to be tormented by a number of perceived persecutors. Mark Mathis and Bill Donohue rank high on the list.
...
He has undertaken a private crusade to torment Mathis at public gatherings, even calling on his followers to inundate radio stations with phone calls when Mathis is on.

I don't know of one instance where Myers has "tormented" Mathis in public, and Myers has people call in to Mathis' radio appearances to counter false claims.

But as much as he opposes Mathis, Myers has an even more intense dislike of Donohue.
...
For his part, Donohue called Myers “part egotist, part bigot — his behavior is clearly designed to insult, hurt and intimidate Catholics.

Next, Gardener ends with quotes suggesting Myers has a troubled past (unlikely, more he just can't stand ignorance):

Father Loya also pointed out that in desecrating the Eucharist, Myers’ real target might be the Church — “like a little girl trying to hurt another little girl by pulling the head off her doll.”

“His ‘contempt’ for religion reveals some wound, some hurt,” suggested Father Loya. “Is it evil? Yes. But having said that, know that he is acting out of anger, some hurt.”

And finally, Gardener gives a positive view of how after all the Catholics have been through in this ordeal, it has only made Jesus stronger.

Noting that the Eucharist, as a sacrament, is a visible sign of the invisible reality of our unity with Christ, Father Loya said Myers has performed “his own sacrament in reverse,” by making the invisible reality in his life — his anger — visible.

“But even in this inverted action, don’t you see what Christ is doing? He is, once again, going to the cross so that we may draw nearer to him,” said the priest. “Rather than coming down on us with fire, as we might deserve, he is loving us through his humiliation and suffering, turning us back to him.”

I don't even think I can try to figure out how the logic of the last two paragraphs there work. Remind me never to do interviews for the National Catholic Register.