All Comments (39)

So, we'll agree to disagree on this? And don't worry about the extra g, I figured your fingers were trying to keep up with your thoughts... Happens to me all the time, I am the king of tyops... lol

I do see where you are coming from and the logic you are using, I just don't see the same result. Such is life...

Oops, I meant to write, all bigoted professors of Latino Studies are humans, and therefore if you are not a bigoted professor of Latino Studies, you have not 'achieved the fullness of your humanity'".

Greg

(Sorry I kept adding an extra G to your name). Yes, I am a professor (neurophysiology). As for where Professor Arroyo-Stevens is coming from, I will take his words at their face value, since I don't think they are worth the effort of exegesis. In any case, it is not clear to me how he could have made the sentiments at all palatable since they are fundamentally bigoted. But that was in a previous essay. The present essay is just silly, although it seems to me that he is actually attempting to make the same point. He could have said all "humans are bigoted professors of Latino Studies, and therefore, if you are not a bigoted professor of Latino Studies, you have not 'achieved the fullness of your humanity'". That logic is obviously flawed at a VERY basic level but it is directly analogous to the reasoning in his current essay.

I do understand where you are coming from, I was pointing out where he was coming from. I'm not defending what he said merely pointing out why he said it. You are right in that he should know better and that his choice of words was poor, but do you know of a better way to say what he said?

As for the vitriol on the posts I find it interesting that many people treat others the same why they claim to be treated. I'm still in school but since when does two wrongs make a right? I always thought it took 3 lefts... lol

Oh, wait are we allowed to be civil with eachother?

PS are you a professor?

Gregg

On a message board like this all kinds of people come out of the woodwork, that is the nature of the internet. However, Professor Stevens-Arroyo IS SUPPOSED TO KNOW BETTER. What do you suppose the reaction among Jews would be if I wrote "I never met a Jew I could like, etc. etc.". What would happen if I insulted Puerto Ricans like this? Or African Americans? Faculty members at publicly funded universities -- like the ones where Professor Stevens-Arroyo and I both work -- would find ourselves in a very uncomfortable position for publicly making such a remark about those groups. We would probably keep our jobs in the end, but we would be told in no uncertain terms that this is unacceptable discourse for academicians in public forums. Or maybe we wouldn't keep our jobs, I seem to remember a faculty member at the University of Texas law school who was dismissed for something along these lines about African Americans.

But in the United States in 2007 you can say pretty much anything you want about atheists without any consequences. Understand that as you try to figure out the anger that percolates through these threads.

BA'AL
I wish they had an edit feature here but here are some examples I found in a few minutes of searching just on this subject alone. I know not all athiests are like this but when this is all you see and read...

Horse manure. There is no god. Prayers are only "answered" when you pray for what is going to happen anyway. Religion is nonsense. (chuck colson post on prayer)

Must be comforting to have a goofy little friend to talk to and sing to at will, like any child, or Peter Pan, when the news on NPR gets a too close for comfort.
Utter delusional nonsense. (Richard Mouw post on prayer)

If I screamed at a tree at least 17 times a day because I felt I owed a debt to it, I would considered insane and committed... but since this person calls this habitual act praying, it is no longer considered a pathological condition and passes as faith.
It is this kind of obsessive compulsive fanaticism that leads to the type of religious extremism we see in the weak willed individuals causing the strife we see in the world today. If people were allowed to live without being brow-beaten about how they owe their lives to some here-to-for unseen cosmic deity, the world would indeed be a much more peaceful place. I’ll pray for that day to come. (Sherman Jackson post on prayer)

Here's quick demonstration of how truly silly this stuff is -- substitute the word "Zeus" for the word "God" (equally irrational concepts) and let's see what happens. . . So William said:
"I pray to a Zeus of mystery, a personal Zeus, an approachable Zeus, but a mysterious Zeus nonetheless."
Hum. Makes sense to me.
Thank you. (William J Bryon post on prayer)

I put the essay the comment was found in and simply took out the name of the poster...

BA'AL
Again he was talking about a section of athiests. You could just as easily put in 'bible thumpers' and get the same result. I've met many people who've only run into bible thumpers and thus have a dim view of ALL Christians.

He is simply calling it like he sees it. How many posts have you seen here that would prove that quote? Someone as smart as you could probably come up with at least 6-10 in 5 minutes without looking hard at all.

I understand where you are coming from on this, I don't like it when I get labeled because of some chucklehead who is bible-bashing, so I know where you are coming from.

He is speaking from HIS personal experience and that experience has been less than stellar to say the least.

Gregg

You must have missed the one where he says "I never met an atheist I could like. Surely, somewhere on this planet, there is a friendly atheist, but I haven’t bumped into one yet. The atheists who have crossed my path are obnoxious. They create the world in their own image and likeness, where only they are right or reasonable, and everyone else is either a fool or fanatic. Any atheist who doubts him/herself enough to benefit someone else’s opinion is not a dogmatic atheist, but an agnostic: see below."

Dave,

You're a bit myopic and combative yourself. Combative for telling people what they should and should not discuss. Myopic, because your rule about not arguing the existence/nonexistance of a diety loses sight of commenter's presumption: to prove to us that if we haven't prayed to his diety then we must be incomplete or stunted in the development of our humanity. It seems natural to ask why one should pray to something for which there is no evidence of its existence.

More generally, it's not clear why you think the absence of faith is inappropriate for a discussion about faith, especially in a thread that is so clearly directed with arrogance toward those without it.

Hee Haw
Moo
Bow Wow
Woof Woof
Oink Oink

What a crock of manure!

Mr. Stevens-Arroyo,

It would helpful if you start by defining "Prayer" so the rest of us might understand what you're talking about.

Thank you.

Everyone here seems bent on acting like miopic toddlers. Truths can be different for different people. We all look for the path that leads us to universal integration. For some its the pysical sciences, for some its spiritual devotion. If you disagree with spirituality, maybe you should look for other activites than a postboard about faith, which in some sense presupposes a faith in a deity, whatever shape it may take. It really seems distasteful to initiate conflict. And if someone attempts to initiate conflict, it might better serve us all if you ignore it. Don't argue the existance/nonexistance of a deity on a board like this.

BA'AL,
I looked and you're gonna have to point the offensive essays out to me because I read through all of the ones here and found nothing that was overtly hostile to athiests, just the ones who 'know' they are right and everyone else is either crazy or stupid. I would assume that many athiests don't think this and are willing to have a civilized conversation with people of faith and that a small group makes everyone else look bad.

As I've said before....the vast majority of people who were swept away in the recent Asian Sunami prayed 5 times a day facing Mecca.
Didn't seem to have helped them too much.

Realist,

You may also note that religious people make predictions too, and they can be tested. One in Genesis is that when Adam ate of the tree of knowledge he would die that very day. Of course he went on to live for 930 years, supposedly.

Anonymous,
FYI:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Physicists_Develop_Test_for_String_Theory_999.html

String theory can be tested in principle and now it seems in practice also.

Prayer, on the other hand is just talking to yourself. Do something more useful with your time like studying physics.

BA'Al,

As a science professor, you've no doubt heard of string theory. Though no scientist has yet to discover a single string, this has niether prevented the postulation of the theory, nor deterred scientists' vigorous pursuit to prove its existence.

Perhaps scientists are just parodies of the prayerful.

Elohist, what is logical about believing in things for which there is no evidence? One person who has seen a giraffe can present objective evidence of it to one who has not seen a giraffe. The same cannot be said of a unicorn, so it is entirely logical to doubt the existence of unicorns. In the same way we have no objective evidence of the things you'd like us to believe in.

And if Arroyo is not relying on some physical evidence of prayer like hand-clasping, then what is the basis of his claim that animals do not pray?

Elohist, I think you should be invited as an expert on this site, especially since you have already experienced afterlife! You would fit convincingly into Arroyo's giraffe collection.

That is exactly what Arroyo suggested: The zoo visitor is superior to the other guy, if I understand your limping metaphor right. (But then, nobody doubts the existence of giraffes, since most everybody has seen one, so I don't really know where God comes into this picture).

Who else's experience than your own is your life based on? Can you tap other people's brains?

Elohist makes one of the classic arguments in favor of the existence of the Tooth Fairy. After all, just because you haven't seen it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist; and I acknowledge freely that I have NOT seen the Tooth Fairy and cannot prove that she does not exist.

Elohist, where do you stand on the Tooth Fairy? How about Thor? Or Moloch? Are you a parody?

Gregg

Go look at the rest of Professor Stevens-Arroyo's comments over the last several weeks and you will see that his words this time should be taken at face value. I am sure charitable people could find a less offensive way to intepret "those who don’t pray have not achieved the fullness of their humanity." But I don't see any reason in light of his previous comments to be charitable.

How funny! The people who claim to be reasonable claim that because they haven't experienced the afterlife, God, religion, etc. it couldn't possibly exist. That's not logical: just because you haven't seen it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The whole idea of dis-covering is finding something that was always there but hidden from sight. If somebody has seen a live giraffe and other person hasn't seen one, Yoyo, it doesn't mean the person who went to the zoo is "more human" than the other. And who said that you have to clasp the hands together to pray-- Arroyo said just the opposite, so you must agree with him but you're too dumb to realize that you just said you do. Why do you Gerry, Rafael and Somebody Else think that the range of human being is based on every individual's experience. Thank God that none of you are invited as experts on this site!

Is anyone else becoming concerned about the level of thought shown on here by the supposed "professionals" on the forum?

I am happy to have the opportunity to read the thoughts/processes, but, boy, am I disappointed in the quality of the product.

A Closed House gathers Stale Air. An Ivory Tower with slick sides...looks real pretty, but totally not functional.

Musty...yes, that's the word I was looking for.

Musty.

Gerry

Right you are. Your comments bring to mind United States Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence William Boykin, a former General on on the battlefield and in the Pentagon, and not too long ago a frequent speaker at evangelical Christian meetings. He once said the war on terror was a fight against Satan, and said of Osama bin Laden that 'My God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.' (Your comment reminded me of this quote).

Undersecretary Boykin is the same man who advised then Camp X-Ray head Major General Geoffrey Miller in Guantanamo to transfer the same Camp X-Ray methods to Abu Ghraib and the Iraqi prison system.

This is a guy prays a lot, so Professor Stevens-Arroyo would judge him more human than you or me. Actually, General Boykin has said that God talks to him, and that his wife told him he was a religious maniac just before walking out.

"But since their human experience is either incomplete, or stunted, or both, they should consider that those of us who pray just might have chosen the better part.

Posted by Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo on February 5, 2007 9:10 AM "

Male Ego Clap Trap. Honestly.

"US versus THEM" So TYPICAL in this "holier than thou" little contest of ORGANIZED RELIGION versus SPIRITUALITY.

BA'AL,
He is guilty of poor word choice perhaps. He would have been better saying that humans are the only ones who have the ability to pray, the choice is theirs. I agree, not everyone prays but all humans can choose to pray. Does that make sense? I seriously doubt he was trying to make atheists less than human, but when you speak in generalities you run that risk.

The great philosopher Captain Kirk: "Even if a thing is “illogical,” it is a necessary part of the human equipment for survival." Evidently of Mr. Arroyo's survival, as can be deduced by his piece.

The worst part is not this "simplicity" of thinking, buoyed with some nebulous name-dropping of early psychology, but the dangerous connection of conceit ("my teddy bear is bigger than yours") and superstition: It is the material wars are made of!

Gerry

What Elohist missed in my last remark -- a sadly wasted attempt at irony -- is that I am also a professor (neuroscientist). I even hold an endowed chair, just like our panelist.

Only humans who believe in the existence of the supernatural pray. Animals are not so stupid.
They live entirely in the real world
To think that by clapping our hands together and talking to oneself is going to be heard by some
bigbrother in the sky is not only amazingly ego-centric,but totally delusional.
Please...lets get real. Reality is beautiful.

I am also one of those stunted, underdeveloped people, although also a professor, which according to eloist automatically makes me much smarter than him, lol!

How is it possible that a person with such a hilarious sense of logic as Mr. Arroyo ever became a "professor"?

Arroyo's logic: "Only humans play the saxophone. Therefore whoever doesn't play the saxophone is not human."

Eloist, my "chimp" friends did have a good laugh at both the professor and you!

Stupidity defines itself by the fact that its owners unfortunately don't have a sense to perceive it, thus they will never know what they are missing!

"[a]nimals have not recently been observed praying. Thus, the statement that “only humans pray” is unassailable."

Would the Professor assign a good grade to a student who handed him this reasoning on a term paper? I hope instead that he would ask the student, as he ought to ask himself, "how would you know if an animal were praying? Would it have to kneel and hold its hands in supplication like a cartoon rabbit, or would it have to mumble it's thoughts incoherently to its own non-existent heaven?"

If humans are the only ones who pray, it seems to be more a sign that humans are uniquely insecure in their place in the universe. In other words, humans are uniquely superstitious.

He continues:

"those who don’t pray have not achieved the fullness of their humanity...since their human experience is either incomplete, or stunted, or both, they should consider that those of us who pray just might have chosen the better part."

I say better to rely on and celebrate reason, even if reason is tainted by its association with non-human experience, than to celebrate the peculiar insecurity that Stevens-Arroyo thinks makes us special.

Only humans pray, therefore those humans who do not pray are not human.

OK, which logical fallacy is he committing this time? Genocide is frequently based on similar ideology.

We need some of those logical fallacy bingo-cards for Anthony's posts.

At least HE feels good about what he is saying, and I guess that's all that counts.

Ba'al : There is no doubt that all your chimp friends will laugh, just as the professor proved.

Professor Stevens-Arroyo's paraphrase of Freud and Jung is rather loose and free. If he could cite some exact references where Freud makes the points that are refuted by Jung, it would clarify what sounds like an imagining of some sort.

Eloist

I'm gonna have to show your last comment to some of my colleagues. They will get a kick out of it.

Ba'al get over it! The "Mr."is a Professor and he is smarter than you. Just because you haven't experienced what most people already have enjoyed doesn't make you a Neanderthal. Some people are Da Vincis, some Rembrandts, and some just don't have those abilities. That's no reason to avoid going to art museums to appreciate what people with more talent have been able to achieve. Or do you think that artists who are better than you are bigots? You seem to get POed at Stevens-Arroyo just because he makes sense. At the rate you're going, a chimp will demonstrate greater intelligence.

Mr. Arroyo-Stevens says that if you don't pray, you're not quite human, just the sort of thing I have come to expect from him. Actually, he is saying that people like me are lower than Neandertals (who may have buried their dead with rituals). I don't know if my living experience is "incomplete or stunted or both". But I know that I am getting the full experience of reading the words of a true bigot in the Washington Post. A bigot who thinks that animals can "speak and use symbols". So whatever path this moron has chosen, buoyed by Car Jung and Captain Kirk, I am considering that it might be better to head in the other direction.

Thus, the statement that “only humans pray” is unassailable HOW WOULD YOU KNOW UNLESS YOU CAN SPEAK THEIR LANGUAGE? YOU CAN NOT, SO YOU DO NOT.
Perhaps their concept of creation is no less accurate, no less valid than our own. If you wish to lecture us on ethnocentric attitudes, you should check yours at the door. Respectfully speaking of course. God Bless you. amen.

Professor Stevens-Arroyo,

I take exception:

You say that only humans pray. All the animals I've gotten to know well pray, particularly cats. I think you should spend more time with animals and expand your perceptual horizons.

People don't have lifestyles - they have lives.

Regards.