- I apologize for the misspelling. My mistake.
- Some complain about not linking the original blog post. The reason is I was going after the overall approach that Myers takes when writing about people. But I wasn’t attacking a specific blog post, rather what Rabbi Averick faced. For those interested, here is the link. More importantly, I was writing based upon Rabbi Averick’s post and from what I’ve seen; the post Myers links everyone to isn’t what I was responding to.
- Myers wrote a “response” that only proves my point: Labeling me an “IDiot” is an ad hominem attack. Giving it tags of “kooks” and “stupid” only furthers my point; Myers is apparently incapable of holding a civil conversation. How much I would have loved if he responded civilly, to the point that I would have been shown to truly be a kook and be stupid. But he didn’t. He merely proved my point.
- Myers’ attempt, and his brute squad’s attempt, to say that the entire post was one big ad hominem is both true and false. On one hand it’s true because I did look to how he handles himself (and how the overall community of atheists have handled themselves). On the other, I never attacked them for this or interjected it with argumentation; rather I was making an observation that isn’t insulting, but accurate. It’s true that Myer (and many of his followers) is extremely uncivil. In my opinion this is because he’s afraid of the growing strength of theism at the academic level (and it’s not just him, but many people – we see the same thing among some evangelical Christians when confronted with foreign beliefs). If nothing else, it was an attempt to show that Myers and others are displaying a distinct fear – whether they’ll admit it or not – in the face of the rise of theism in academia.
- Even if Myers claims to have dealt with the arguments – and he does make attempts at times – it’s wrapped around so much hate and vitriol that it’s difficult to see the point. It’s like a rain-wrapped tornado: You may not see it coming, but it’ll cause just as much damage.
- Mocking people who study theology or those who believe in God only furthers my point that Myers isn’t dealing with the issue of theism appropriately. No one is asking him to embrace theism, nor to avoid some heated conversations or ideas about theism. But at least be respectful about it and realize that one can rationally embrace both theism and Christianity (or Islam, or Judaism, and so on). To act as though it’s an act of pure irrationality is, quite honestly, to be behind the times philosophically and shows that he possibly embraces an epistemological method that has been proven defunct since the 1960s.
- Before I make this next point, I should be fair and note that there’s no way Myers could have known about it: Don’t consider me a proponent of Intelligent Design. In recent years I’ve noticed some philosophical problems with it (as well as scientific problems). While I’m certainly sympathetic towards ID – far more sympathetic towards it than I am towards naturalism interjected into evolutionary theory – I would not consider myself an ID proponent.
- Honestly, that Myers would even choose to go after me makes me laugh a bit. Generally Josh and I are happy if we can get 50 views in one day. We’re some of the most irrelevant bloggers out there. A good day for us is that some of our friends happened to read what we had to say and passed it onto others. As of this time, we have over 500 views. So maybe P.Z. Myers has finally done something good. Thanks Myers!
As an aside, some of you will notice that the comments may not initially appear. That is because I have a filter on and will keep it on. Rest assured though most comments will get through once I’ve had a chance to moderate them. I know, I know, “censorship!” But it is what it is.