# "Desecration" of the Eucharist **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 18, 2011, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144 "2011-03-18T13:09:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![TravisFromOR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cc9497/32.png) [@TravisFromOR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TravisFromOR)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/321 "2011-03-22T01:14:45Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There is no such legal condition. Actually, there is. Google “conditional gift.” There is a plethora of websites proving me right. Also, read the post above yours. Of course, you don’t even know what the “Eucharist” is, so your opinion is trivial in these matters. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/322 "2011-03-22T01:16:35Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > I don’t think this counts as “demolishing” the argument. I know that the possibly necessary premise is disputed. To “demolish” the argument you need to show why it is impossible for this premise to be true. Just making some vauge reference to the problem of evil (which Plantiga has written on as well) doesn’t count as disproving anything. The Problem of Evil renders possible necessity logically impossible > [@](#): > > This is just multiply confused. Amoung the confusions are: > > 1. Dawkins does not demonstrate that God is not necessary. Dawkins does not have a burden to do that, but in point of fact, it is sufficient merely to point out that nothing observable in the universe makes God necessary. Anything beyond that is an appeal to absence. the default assumption is that necessity doesn’t exist until it’s demonstrated to exist. > [@](#): > > All he does is point to how evolution explains biological complexity and then hand-waves a similar solution for all other physical laws. He presents no real argument or evidence that this is the case, more really just a statement of faith that it must be found somewhere in the future. It is hardly a convincing case. He argues that nothing we’ve yet observed necessitates magic as an explanation. It’;s just that simple. > [@](#): > > 1. There is no such thing as a “logical default”. Wrong. It’s called the [Null Hypotheis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis). Existence of sky gods is a hypothesis, non-existence is the null. Non-existence is the default presumption because it’s not a claim. the one making the claim has the burden. > [@](#): > > If one has no evidence to show that a proposition is either true or false then the truth value of the statement is uncertain. Absent any argument why a should be true it is impossible to assign any sort of truth value to a statement. To simply assume a statement is true or false without any evidence or argument is simply irrational. No, it doesn’t work that way. merely being able to inmagine that something exist does not give it a 50/50 chance of existing. The presumption is that X does not exist until proven otherwise. We do not need to waste our time disproving an infinite number of fanciful entities which lack either evidence or necessity. > [@](#): > > 1. Lack of evidence is itself not an argument for anything. Lack of evidence is a rock solid argument for the null hypotheis. > [@](#): > > 1. “Lack of evidence” can only work as an argument when you demonstrate that if a statement is true there must necessarily be seen some evidence that is not seen. The POE is a simple example of this. So for instance: > (1) If God exists there necessarily must be no suffering in the world. > (2) There is in fact suffering in the world > (3) Therefore God does not exist. > I think that the first premise is false If it God is defined as omnimax, then the first premise logically has to be true. > [@](#): > > and so is the entire argument, but that is how you would use a “lack of evidence”. If Dawkins could point out something about the world that is not true that would be necessarily true if God existed he might have an argument. He doesn’t do that however, so he doesn’t. “Lack of evidence” has nothing to do with the POE. > [@](#): > > 1. Invoking Occam’s razor here is unwarranted because it has simply not been shown that God is not in some way necessary. Nor does it need to be. You have your burden backards here. If you want to allege necessity than demonstrate it. If it’s not demonstrated then the presumption is that it doesn’t exist. That’s the null hypothesis. [quote] 6) The statement that “the laws of physics are inviolable” needs some justification. [/quote The justifications is the laws themselves, and you’re still making a sophist appeal to absence. If you want to allege that the laws of physics can be violated, then demonstrate it. The null hypothesis is that they cannot. > [@](#): > > And just pointing out that I cannot name any event that shows them to be inviolable does not count. You are the one with the burden of proof. > [@](#): > > That does not prove that they are inviolable, just that I am ignorant of any example of them being violated. If you want to claim they can be violated, then you have to prove it. The null hypothesis is that they can’t be. > [@](#): > > In fact I think this is simply circular reasoning on your part. The only reason I would think to believe that the laws of physics are inviolable would be because God does not exist and that God did not create the world. To then use that to demonstrate that God cannot exist is simply begging the question. This is like some kind of bizarro blizzard of anti-logic that I an’t even follow. > [@](#): > > Also, I am genuinely curious. Can you name any other professional philosopher that supports and defends Dawkins work? Dawkins is a biologist, not a philosopher, so I don’t know why it would be relevant what philosophers think of his work. If you’re asking what they think of _The God Delusion_ (which is written from a scientific perspecvtive, not a philosophical one), then I don’t know. He doesn’t make any real phiolsophical arguemnets in the book, although he does describe some classic ones. > [@](#): > > You seem to think of his as some sort of philosopical giant Nope. He’s just a biologist who wrote a popular book with some boiler plate criticisims of magical thinking. He said nothing particularly new in the book. I didn’t learn anything from it. Carl Sagan actually made a lot of the same points before Dawkins did. > [@](#): > > so I am wondering on what you base that view. I don’t have that view. Dawkins is not a philosopher and says nothing philosophically new. What he says about the metaphysical claims of religion is _accurate_, though. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/323 "2011-03-22T01:24:17Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > So your objection is to the use of “a” instead of “the”. And it’s a perfectly valid objection. A wafer is not a eucharist. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/324 "2011-03-22T01:27:13Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > I’ve been largely baffled by the maniacal digression (with supporting threads, even) into the matter of how the particular wafer in question was obtained. > > The real offense is to civility. It’s the obnoxious message, the pointless trolling gesture. Just as, for me, Pastor Terry Jones would be equally contemptible for burning a book of blank pages that he claimed was a Qur’an, as for announcing the burning of an actual Qur’an. > > Punishment? No, just scorn for jerkishness, and for some maybe resentment for the bad name he helps to give atheism. (Oddly, **Dio** ’s definition of “religionist” to me sounds like it applies perfectly, to himself and Myers.) It seems to me that the real offense to civility is other people taking it upon themselves to decide what Myers should be permitted to do with his own property. Seriously, he’s a “jerk” for throwing his own bread and paper into a garbage can? That somehow is an intrusion into your life? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/325 "2011-03-22T01:28:17Z")
> [@TravisFromOR](#): > > Actually, there is. Google “conditional gift.” There is a plethora of websites proving me right. Also, read the post above yours. Cite that a “condition” can exist if one party doesn’t know about it and doesn’t agree to it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/326 "2011-03-22T01:30:49Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Yes, it’s a meaningless pedantic nitpick. If you consecrate only one host, it’s still “The Eucharist.” If you consecrate a pile of them, and take one to a hospital to give to someone, it’s still “The Eucharist.” If you take one home and flush it down the toilet, you’re flushing “The Eucharist.” No. The eucharist is the bread and wine together. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/327 "2011-03-22T01:31:43Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No. The eucharist is the bread and wine together. No. Either or both is sufficient to partake of the sacrament. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/328 "2011-03-22T01:33:42Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It seems to me that the real offense to civility is other people taking it upon themselves to decide what Myers should be permitted to do with his own property. Seriously, he’s a “jerk” for throwing his own bread and paper into a garbage can? That somehow is an intrusion into your life? I assume you’re also outraged when the US military punished people for flushing their own paper down toilets and defacing their own books. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/329 "2011-03-22T01:37:31Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > No. Either or both is sufficient to partake of the sacrament. To partake, but the word still refers to both of them collectively. A single wafer is not “a eucharist” unless it was the only thing consecrated. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/330 "2011-03-22T01:39:28Z")
For pete’s sake, this side discussion is really stupid, Diogenes. You said: > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The primary meaning of “eucharist” is to the ceremony, not to the fucking cracker. …as if to imply that once the “ceremony” is over, the “cracker” is some kind of irrelevant byproduct. The entire point of the consecration is to turn the thing into the Body of Christ. Once that is done, a dumptruck full of them is not any more sacred than a tiny crumb that breaks off one. That’s why there are protocols in place in case one is dropped on the floor. If one is stolen and desecrated, then The Eucharist is stolen and desecrated. That’s the real usage, and more to the point, it’s the real dogma. I actually don’t think that you don’t know this, I think you’re just pretending not to, and I can’t imagine why. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/331 "2011-03-22T01:49:41Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I assume you’re also outraged when the US military punished people for flushing their own paper down toilets and defacing their own books. This story turned out to be [bogus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Qur%27an_desecration_controversy). Having said that, the circumstances would not have been the same because the expected code of behavior is different in the military, and because we’re talking about allegations of what soldiers did in the course of their job, not what they did on their own time. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/332 "2011-03-22T01:50:00Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > To partake, but the word still refers to both of them collectively. A single wafer is not “a eucharist” unless it was the only thing consecrated. Why is this so significant to you? Any amount of consecrated wafer or wine is _THE_ Eucharist. Saying it isn’t _A_ Eucharist isn’t helping your argument even a little bit, so why fixate on it? ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/333 "2011-03-22T01:55:09Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It seems to me that the real offense to civility is other people taking it upon themselves to decide what Myers should be permitted to do with his own property. Seriously, he’s a “jerk” for throwing his own bread and paper into a garbage can? That somehow is an intrusion into your life? This is like saying that there’s nothing obnoxious about Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist because their signs are all made with their very own posterboard. It has nothing to do with _me_, and it has nothing to do with anyone’s _property_. Gawdalmighty! ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/334 "2011-03-22T01:55:29Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > For pete’s sake, this side discussion is really stupid, Diogenes. You said: > > …as if to imply that once the “ceremony” is over, the “cracker” is some kind of irrelevant byproduct. The entire point of the consecration is to turn the thing into the Body of Christ. Once that is done, a dumptruck full of them is not any more sacred than a tiny crumb that breaks off one. That’s why there are protocols in place in case one is dropped on the floor. If one is stolen and desecrated, then The Eucharist is stolen and desecrated. That’s the real usage, and more to the point, it’s the real dogma. I actually don’t think that you don’t know this, I think you’re just pretending not to, and I can’t imagine why. This is a separate discussion from my entirely semantic nitpick about the specific word “eucharist” being applicable to a single wafer. I’m not saying they aren’t all consecrated. I’m saying they aren’t all individual “eucharists,” just like every french fry on on combo meal isn’t an individual combo meal. I do not believe the entire eucharist is considered to have been desecrated if a single wafer gets taken home without being eaten. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/335 "2011-03-22T01:59:17Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > This is like saying that there’s nothing obnoxious about Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist because their signs are all made with their very own posterboard. Myers didn’t go out in public. Nobody has to read his blog. Anybody who sees his speech is seeing it purely by choice. Hes not subjecting anyone to it who doesn’t want to be subjected to it. it’s not the same as harranging people in public (though I don’t see why anybody cares about the Phelps clan either). > [@](#): > > It has nothing to do with _me_, and it has nothing to do with anyone’s _property_. Then what does it have to do with? ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/336 "2011-03-22T02:02:15Z")
As a Christian it makes me sad that someone feels the need to do something like the blogger mentioned in the OP did. But he can’t hurt the sacrament, such a thing is beyond his ability. All he did was hurt himself with the hate he must feel. The best response from a Christian would not be to take legal action, but to pray that the anger or hate he feels will be taken from him, that he learns to live and let live. I’d say the same thing about revered objects from any faith. Remember when terrorists stormed in at the Kaaba in Mecca? Or the Taliban blew up those ancient statues of Buddha? Sad and shocking. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/337 "2011-03-22T02:08:19Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is a separate discussion from my entirely semantic nitpick about the specific word “eucharist” being applicable to a single wafer. I’m not saying they aren’t all consecrated. I’m saying they aren’t all individual “eucharists,” just like every french fry on on combo meal isn’t an individual combo meal. I do not believe the entire eucharist is considered to have been desecrated if a single wafer gets taken home without being eaten. First, it’s not a separate discussion. A whole pile of them is “The Eucharist,” and one of them is “The Eucharist” and a tiny crumb of one of them is “The Eucharist.” It’s all the same thing. I don’t actually know what you mean by “the entire eucharist.” Second, desecration of the Eucharist is a mortal sin for a Catholic, and that can absolutely referr to desecration of a single wafer, so…I think you’re somehow very confused. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/338 "2011-03-22T02:09:24Z")
> [@Baker](#): > > As a Christian it makes me sad that someone feels the need to do something like the blogger mentioned in the OP did. > > But he can’t hurt the sacrament, such a thing is beyond his ability. All he did was hurt himself with the hate he must feel. The best response from a Christian would not be to take legal action, but to pray that the anger or hate he feels will be taken from him, that he learns to live and let live. Maybe some context for what Myers did would be in order: > [@](#): > > A controversy arose in July 2008 over a Pharyngula blog entry written by Myers expressing amazement at news reports of death threats issued to University of Central Florida Student Senator Webster Cook. On June 29, 2008, Cook attended a Catholic Mass being held in the student union at UCF by a Catholic student group that receives funding from the student government. Cook received the Catholic Eucharist host but did not consume it immediately. He said later that he wanted to take it back to his seat to show a friend, but when stopped he put it in his mouth until back at his seat, then a church leader made forcible attempts to take the wafer from him.[28][29] Cook stored the host at his home, then returned it one week later after receiving e-mail threats and pleas.[28][30] Bill Donohue, President of the Catholic League, described the student’s actions as “beyond hate speech” and said that “All options should be on the table, including expulsion.”[31] > > In his July 8 blog entry, Myers criticized the reaction to Cook’s act. Myers described the level of harassment including multiple death threats leveled against the student, and accusations against the student which included hate crime, kidnapping, and intent to desecrate the wafer which Catholics consider a mortal sin.[29][32] Myers expressed outrage that Fox News appeared to be inciting readers to cause further problems for the student, and ridiculed reports that armed guards would attend the next mass. Myers suggested that if any of his readers could acquire some consecrated Eucharistic hosts for him, he would treat the wafers “with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web.”[33]… > …Subsequently, Myers explained to the Star Tribune that while his post was “satire and protest,” he had received death threats regarding the incident but was not taking them too seriously… > …On July 24, 2008, Myers, in his post, “The Great Desecration,” wrote that he had pierced through the “goddamned cracker” with a rusty nail, which he also used to pierce a few ripped-out pages of the Qur’an and The God Delusion, and had simply thrown them all in the trash along with old coffee grounds and a banana peel. He provided a photograph of these items in the garbage, and wrote that nothing must be held sacred, encouraging people to question everything. In addition, he described the history of allegations of host desecration, emphasizing the frequent use of such allegations in medieval Europe to justify anti-Semitism.[38] If you think Myers is filled with hate, what about the the people who threatened to murder a college student for taking a communion wafer back to his seat to show it to a friend? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/339 "2011-03-22T02:13:55Z")
Never mind. My whole semantic parsing of the eucharist argument is too nitpicky and stupid to be worth pursuing. I wil concede the point that “eucharist” can refer to the host. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/340 "2011-03-22T02:16:49Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > “The eucharist,” not “a eucharist.” Each individual wafer is not a separate individual eucharist. > > The “entire eucharist” is everything supposedly consecrated by the priest. You’re actually completely conceptually wrong about this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144.md?page=18)