Is it really PZ Myers’ propensity towards, as Massimo Pigliucci puts it, being like “an intemperate teenager in the midst of a hormonal rage” that accounts for the “theatrics that apparently makes him so popular”? Is PZ Myers really merely a misunderstood mild mannered commentator?
Is PZ Myers really fierce and malicious?
Only God and PZ Myers know with certainty, but let us consider the issue.
PZ Myers refers to himself as a “a godless liberal,” “pointedly unchristian” and is a positive atheist since he positively affirms God’s non-existence (without evidence see here and here).
When you are inconsistent it is difficult to discern which is the real you. Is PZ Myers perceived as malicious but is really not? Is he perceived as not but really is? Is he, which seems to be the case, malicious towards toward those with whom he disagrees but a big teddy bear when meeting the New Humanists or New Scientists who agree with him? Let us consider PZ Myers’ meetings with his choir:
…he’s a softly-spoken and extremely friendly fellow, and nothing like the intolerant hardline atheist his opponents would like to paint him as.
Myers’s inflammatory acts and language would lead one to suspect him of being overtly aggressive, yet in person he is soft spoken and his views seem rather measured.1
PZ Myers himself paints the picture of being an “intolerant hardline atheist” and “overtly aggressive.” Note what may be a very accurate qualifier, “Myers’s inflammatory acts.” Why is he seen as “intolerant hardline atheist” and “overtly aggressive” if he is “softly-spoken and extremely friendly…soft spoken and…rather measured”? Perhaps it is all a self-serving attention getting act.
The title of the interview from which the following is quoted refers to PZ Myers as “Mild-mannered” and notes:
[PZ Myers] drinks his daily coffee at the Common Cup, whose mission is posted in a handwritten sign above its stone fireplace: “The purpose of Common Cup is to provide a Christian environment and a welcoming place for the local and campus communities to come together.” “I write some of my most subversive screeds against religion sitting there,” Myers says.2
Apparently, PZ Myers’ bizzaro world persona, or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde transformation, turns him from a “Mild-mannered” “softly-spoken and extremely friendly…soft spoken and…rather measured” chap into an “intolerant hardline atheist” and “overtly aggressive”—to say the least.
PZ Myers appears to wake up in a mood as good as any of us may experience. Yet, he purposefully places himself in an atmosphere of gentle loving people which causes conniptions and a transformation.
In Pharyngula, Myers campaigns for evolutionary science, takes aim at creationists and proselytises for atheism while ridiculing religious beliefs with a sharp virtual tongue. In one blog post, for example, he wrote, “There are days when it is agony to read the news, because people are so goddamned stupid… And nothing makes them stupider than religion.”
In person Myers says, “Religion in this country is protected by a wall of silence. You cannot argue with religion. As an atheist I try to teach people that you don’t have to respect religious differences or ideas. This is something that I would like to get across to people: disrespecting ideas is a good thing.”…
While he affirms the right of atheists not to respect religious differences, he adds, “We don’t want that to lead to the point where you can say, ‘You don’t have to respect people being different at all.’ That isn’t true. I think diversity is a great thing. Disrespect for ideas, great. Disrespect for people, not so great.”…
Myers readily admits that being provocative is part of the game…
But for all of his cantankerousness, Myers says the spirit is debate, not malice: “There is this tradition in science that you can argue forcefully for a position and it doesn’t mean that you are going to punch the guy in the nose. Science is a deeper part of my persona than religion or atheism or anything.”
disrespecting ideas is a good thing
Until, that is, you disrespect PZ Myers’ ideas as; Massimo Pigliucci and Michael De Dora found out faster than they could say “Going viral.”
Overall, Myers readily admits that being provocative is part of the game.
Perhaps more evidence of this game is the fact that while he positively affirms God’s non-existence, he consistently—and employing sadly typical ad hominems—refuses to debate the issue. In other words, it seems to be a case of valiance when he is preaching to his choir from the safety of cyberspace and cowardliness when confronted with a real life challenge. In this case, PZ Myers referred to his challenger as “Crazy Pipsqueak…odious…christofascist misogynist…beneficiary of wingnut welfare…prominent freakshow participant…insane babbler” to name a few.
And so…on it goes…