I must say, it always amuses me when an Atheist
(with a capitol “A”, meaning an atheist who makes a big deal out of it) brings the
hammer down on someone who is “supposed” to be a fellow Atheist (typically by
virtue of his scientific training) yet “breaks ranks” by stating or insinuating
that the atheist world view is mistaken. This is apparently an unforgivable
sin in Atheism, since it tends to disprove the Atheist contention that no intelligent, educated
person could possibly believe in God.
My first experience with a Writ of Prosecution
against an Atheist Apostate was when I read neuroscientist Sam Harris
tearing into Eben Alexander, a neurosurgeon, for writing the book “Heaven
is Real” about an alleged near-death experience. Dr. Alexander, you see, is
only a neurosurgeon and, according to Harris, neurosurgeons just cut brains,
they don’t actually study them (or at least Dr. Alexander doesn’t). The same
sort of invective was directed against philosopher Anthony Flew when he
converted to deism ("losing
it in his waning years”), and against Cambridge mathematician John Lennox (“senile”).
Indeed, it does seem that Atheism has its own apostates and its own way of
burning them at the stake.
Since then I have managed to tease out a
pattern for these sort of attacks – (i) personal attacks on the author’s
credibility to distract the reader from considering the substance of what was
actually said and (ii) liberal use of polemics. The article, “The
NDE Delusion”, written by PZ Meyers as a rebuttal to the article Near Death,
Explained by Mario Beauregard fits the pattern quite nicely. No refutation
that Beauregard simply “cuts brains”, for this time the offending author is a
neuroscientist (well, according to Meyers he is only “supposed to be a neuroscientist”).
So perhaps we should all repent and trust Meyers instead when he brands Beauregard a “kook” and states that a
book he once co-authored was “incompetently written and idiotically conceived”
(and don’t forget “gobbledegook”!), that Near
Death, Explained is “full of woo” (be careful, PZ, you’re stealing Sam Harris’
trademark insult – perhaps ‘poo’ would be more original and less likely to
submit you to a trademark infringement lawsuit), that Salon.com published the
article “to confuse us”, that the article's commentators on Salon.com are “mystically-inclined,
quantum-woo-spouting diddledingles”), that the article itself is “nonsense”, “bullshit”
– all before even bothering to embark on a substantive criticism of the article
itself (actually, Meyer’s attenuated effort to discredit NDEs by discrediting
Beauregard by discrediting Salon.com by insulting its readers
as "diddledingles" appeared at the end of Meyer’s polemic).
Meyer’s devastating rebuttal goes on with some
general polemics about the evidence for the veracity of NDEs in general – “tired old anecdotes” and “bogus
misinterpretations”, etc. He then proceeds to (appropriately, in my
opinion) discredit the Maria’s Shoe story, which is commonly used as evidence for the
supernatural theory of NDEs – but then
tries to lump this story in with Pam’s Story (which was what Beauregard’s article was
all about) without even purporting to attack it directly. It’s uncanny
the way Meyers so deftly dances around the meat of Beauregard’s article while nibbling
on the buns. Meyer, an Associate Professor of Biology, then proceeds to lecture
Beauregard, a neuroscientist, on how the brain works. Apparently
this “kooky” neuroscientist who writes articles full of “woo”, “nonsense” and “bullshit”
is the biased one, while PZ Meyers is the calm, rational “freethinker” who sees
everything objectively. OK…
Anyway, Atheists are SO CUTE when they’re angry!
